Blash v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 Court of Appeals Eddie Blash, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-001839 Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Resentencing Judge Paul M. Burch, Post-Conviction Relief Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-281 Submitted September 1, 2020 – Filed October 7, 2020 APPEAL DISMISSED Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, and Eddie Blash, Jr., pro se, for Petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Lindsey Ann McCallister, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because evidence supports the PCR court's finding Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on this issue and proceed with a review of his direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the plea court erred by admitting his criminal record from Florida into evidence. However, because this issue was not raised to the resentencing court, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."). Accordingly, after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal. Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.1 APPEAL DISMISSED. THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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.