Wingate 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Kenneth Marcell Wingate, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal From Darlington County
 J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-136
Submitted March 3, 2008 Filed March 4, 2008

Kenneth Marcell Wingate, of Bennettsville, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:  Kenneth Marcell Wingate appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: 1) State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (explaining that challenging the sufficiency of an indictment does not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction); 2) Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 365, 527 S.E.2d 742, 748 (2000) (holding any matter cognizable under the PCR Act must be raised in a PCR action and may not be raised by a petition for writ of habeas corpus); & 3) Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding if a petitioner is procedurally barred, his only means of obtaining State habeas corpus relief is to file a petition in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court).  Accordingly, the order on appeal is

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.