Dublin v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Charles D. Dublin, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Orangeburg County

L. Casey Manning, Trial Judge

James C. Williams, Jr., First Post-Conviction
Relief Judge

R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Second
Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-185

Submitted March 1, 2010 – Filed March 2,
2010   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General, John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Lance Boozer, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari
from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).  The State
does not object to the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly
and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal.  Accordingly, we grant
the petition for a writ of certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct
appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60
(1986).

Petitioner's
appeal is dismissed,[1] after consideration of his counsel's brief and review pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C.
116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991).  Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

PIEPER and
GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.