Furtick 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 Supreme Court Frank Furtick, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2010-170030 Appeal From Richland County L. Casey Manning, Post-Conviction Relief Judge G. Thomas Cooper., Jr., Trial Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-MO-045 Submitted October 30, 2012 Filed November 7, 2012 AFFIRMED Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, 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 issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). Petitioner's convictions and sentences are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue I: Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981); State v. Wannamaker, 346 S.C. 495, 552 S.E.2d 284 (2001); Issue II: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 625 S.E.2d 641 (2006); State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 599 S.E.2d 448 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1124 (2005); State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 493 S.E.2d 845 (1997); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-330(A) (2003). AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.

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.