Tessner v. Stateq
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 Eric D. Tessner, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2009-143986 Appeal From Florence County Michael G. Nettles, Trial Judge Thomas A. Russo, Post-Conviction Relief Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2012-MO-021 Submitted May 23, 2012 Filed June 6, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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 David Spencer, 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 on petitioner's Question I 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). We deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to petitioner's Question II. Petitioner's convictions and sentences are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978); State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 706 S.E.2d 324 (2011). 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.
