Curry v. State

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

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 Supreme Court

Quincy Lee Curry, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Aiken County
William P. Keesley, Plea Judge
Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2005-MO-033
Submitted June 6, 2005 Filed June 20, 2005

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney Allen Bullard, and Assistant Attorney General J. Hagood Hamilton, Jr., of the Office of the Attorney General, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). 

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). 

Petitioner's conviction and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Smalls, Op. No. 25988 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 23, 2005) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 21 at 37). 

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.