Joe 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 Supreme Court

Mickeal Larron Joe, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Lancaster County
G. Edward Welmaker, Trial Judge
 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2009-MO-045
Submitted July 22, 2009 Filed August 24, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, 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 Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

We deny the petition on Petitioner's Question II.  Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari on Petitioner's Question I, dispense with further briefing, 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 conviction and sentence are affirmed pursuant to pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Evins, 373 S.C. 404, 645 S.E.2d 904 (2007); State v. Jackson, 364 S.C. 329, 613 S.E.2d 374 (2005); State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. 176, 525 S.E.2d 872 (2000).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.