Peeler v. State, 21565
| Citation | 283 S.E.2d 826,277 S.C. 70 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21565,21565 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | Sheldon PEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Deputy Appellate Defender Vance J. Bettis, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen. William K. Moore and Larry L. Vanderbilt, Columbia, for respondent.
The appellant, Sheldon Peeler, brought a post-conviction proceeding challenging the validity of his guilty plea and life sentence on a kidnapping charge. He appeals from the denial, after a hearing, of his application for Post-Conviction Relief.
Peeler relies heavily on State v. Hazel, S.C., 271 S.E.2d 602 (1980). In that case, this Court reversed the guilty plea of Peeler's codefendant because the judge and Hazel's attorney had incorrectly indicated to Hazel that a life sentence for kidnapping was discretionary, not mandatory. Id., 271 S.E.2d at 603. Peeler argues he is in the same position as his codefendant and his conviction should be reversed.
We disagree. Hazel moved to withdraw her plea when she learned the life sentence was mandatory. Furthermore, she appealed directly to this Court from the plea and sentence. Peeler took neither of these steps.
An application for post-conviction relief is not a substitute for an appeal. Errors which could have been reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time, or reasserted, in post-conviction proceedings. Miller v. State, 269 S.C. 113, 236 S.E.2d 422 (1977); Simmons v. State, 264 S.C. 417, 215 S.E.2d 883 (1975).
Peeler is therefore barred from raising this issue in a post-conviction proceeding.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drayton v. Evatt
...for appeal or a place for asserting errors for the first time which could have been reviewed on direct appeal. Peeler v. State, 277 S.C. 70, 283 S.E.2d 826 (1981); see also Cummings v. State, 274 S.C. [312 S.C. 9] 26, 260 S.E.2d 187 (1979); Ashley v. State, 260 S.C. 436, 196 S.E.2d 501 (197......
-
Shepard v. Padula
...attempted to raise the free-standing claim in his first PCR action, the claim would have been procedurally barred. See Peeler v. State, 283 S.E.2d 826, 826 (S.C. 1981) (holding issues which could have been raised at trial or in direct appeal cannot be asserted in collateral proceedings). Wh......
-
State v. Willey
...must first satisfy the court that direct review of the issues presented in his application was not available to him"]; Peeler v. State, 277 S.C. 70, 283 S.E.2d 826 (1981) [appellant is barred from raising issue in post-conviction proceeding that could have been reviewed on direct appeal had......
-
Henderson v. Majors, s. 85-6573
...at a time objection could afford the state courts an opportunity to resolve the matter are deemed waived. See, e.g., Peeler v. State, 277 S.C. 70, 283 S.E.2d 826 (1981); State v. Atchison, 268 S.C. 588, 235 S.E.2d 294 (1977). See also Williams v. Martin, 618 F.2d 1021 (4th Cir. 1980). Altho......