Peeler v. State, No. 21565

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation283 S.E.2d 826,277 S.C. 70
PartiesSheldon PEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 21565
Decision Date15 September 1981

Page 826

283 S.E.2d 826
277 S.C. 70
Sheldon PEELER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 21565.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Sept. 15, 1981.

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.

PER CURIAM:

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[277 S.C. 71] 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
7 practice notes
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...substitute 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.......
  • Shepard v. Padula, Civil Action No. 6:11-1457-MBS-KFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 27, 2012
    ...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, No. 1112
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 22, 1986
    ...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, Nos. 85-6573
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 20, 1987
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...substitute 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.......
  • Shepard v. Padula, Civil Action No. 6:11-1457-MBS-KFM
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • July 27, 2012
    ...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, No. 1112
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • January 22, 1986
    ...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......
  • Smith v. State of S.C., No. 89-6519
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 21, 1989
    ...vague. Thus, under South Carolina law, he is barred from raising the claim in a post-conviction proceeding. See e.g., Peeler v. State, 277 S.C. 70, 71, 283 S.E.2d 826, 826 Smith argues that defense counsel's refusal to raise "the central nonfrivolous issue petitioner sought to have adjudica......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT