Bullis v. State

Annotate this Case

The Supreme Court of South Carolina

Dale Robert Bullis, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina Respondent.

ORDER

Petitioner has petitioned the Court for rehearing in this matter.  We deny the petition, but withdraw Opinion Number 26631 filed April 13, 2009 and substitute it with the attached opinion.

s/Jean H. Toal                                    C.J.

s/John H. Waller, Jr.                           J.

s/Costa M. Pleicones                        J.

s/Donald W. Beatty                            J.

s/John W. Kittredge                           J.

Columbia, South Carolina
August 25, 2009

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

Dale Robert Bullis, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal from Greenville County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Opinion No. 2009-MO-047
Submitted February 19, 2009 Filed August 25, 2009

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

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

PER CURIAM: In this post-conviction relief (PCR) case, the PCR court found probation counsel was not ineffective in failing to inform Petitioner Dale Robert Bullis of his right to appeal the revocation of his probation and denied Petitioner relief.  This Court granted a writ of certiorari to review that decision.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(c) and the following authority: Turner v. State, Op. No. 26708 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed August 24, 2009).

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.