Clayton 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

Robert G. Clayton, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Greenville County
 C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
 Edward M. Miller, Post Conviction Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-006
Submitted January 31, 2006 Filed February 6, 2006

APPEAL DISMISSED

Acting Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent.

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

We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to petitioner's Question II.  However, 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 the petition for a writ of certiorari as to Question I, and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). 

Counsel for petitioner has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a petition to be relieved as counsel.  Petitioner has not filed a pro se response.  After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders, supra, we dismiss the appeal and grant the petition to be relieved as counsel.

DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, J.J., concur.  WALLER, J., not participating.