Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-283,86-283 |
| Citation | 288 S.C. 290,342 S.E.2d 60 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Johnny Frank DAVIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of post-conviction relief, alleging that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to a direct appeal from his criminal conviction and seeking review of the issues arising from his trial. See White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). The post-conviction relief judge indicated that Petitioner may not have waived this right, and Respondent now concedes that Petitioner is entitled to a White v. State review of any direct appeal issues. We, therefore, grant certiorari and order full briefing of any issues that could have been raised in a direct appeal of Petitioner's conviction.
Further, Petitioner and Respondent have joined in a petition seeking procedural guidelines to be followed in post-conviction relief cases where the knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to a direct appeal is at issue. Accordingly, we adopt the following procedure in such cases.
1. When the post-conviction relief judge has affirmatively found that the right to a direct appeal was not knowingly and intelligently waived, 1 the applicant may petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 50, § 9. All post-conviction relief issues, including the waiver of a direct appeal, must be raised and argued in the Petition according to the guidelines set forth in Rule 50, § 9(b). The Petition shall include a list of exceptions regarding the direct appeal issues.
2. On the date the Petition is served, Petitioner shall also serve and file a brief addressing all direct appeal issues. The brief shall comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Rule 8.
3. The Appendix accompanying the Petition shall include, in addition to the requirements of Rule 50, § 9(c), a complete transcript of the criminal trial or plea proceeding.
4. Respondent's Return to the Petition shall be served and filed in accordance with Rule 50, § 9(d), and shall address only the post-conviction relief issues, including the waiver issue.
5. On the date the Return is served, Respondent shall also serve and file a brief addressing the direct appeal issues raised in Petitioner's brief.
6. In cases in which the post-conviction relief judge finds that the applicant is not entitled to a White v. State review, the same procedure shall be followed except...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
...Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari. This Court granted the writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 243, SCACR, and Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).Issues I. Whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner's motion to suppress based on its finding that the police had a......
-
Wells v. Stevenson, C/A No. 5:15-01652-CMC-KDW
...review of direct appeal issues pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). See Rule 243(i), SCACR; Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).Trial counsel is not required to file a notice of appeal without specifically being asked to do so. Roe, 528 U.S. 470. In......
-
Brown v. Wise
... ... KAYMANI D. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ... Deonte ... Steven Brown (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner ... who filed this counseled petition for a writ of habeas corpus ... pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the ... issues pursuant to White v. State ... See Rule ... 227(g) (1), SCACR; Davis v. State , 288 S.C. 290, 342 ... S.E.2d 60 (1986) ... This ... Court affirmatively finds Applicant did not knowingly and ... ...
-
Retana v. Boulware
...for review of direct appeal issues pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). See Rule 243 SCACR; Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).Because I find no evidence that Counsel consulted with Applicant regarding an appeal, I affirmatively find that the Appli......