MO-047 - Lucas 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 Jeffery T. Lucas, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2013-000455 Lower Court Case No. 2010-CP-32-00803 Appeal From Lexington County William P. Keesley, Trial Judge Clifton Newman, Post-Conviction Relief Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-047 Submitted November 19, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014 AFFIRMED Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General John Walter Whitmire, all 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 on petitioner's Question II. 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, dispense with further briefing, 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 authorities: State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 620 S.E.2d 737 (2005) (an argument not raised to and ruled on by the trial judge is not preserved for appellate review); State v. Green, 397 S.C. 268, 724 S.E.2d 664 (2012); State v. Johnson, 338 S.C. 114, 525 S.E.2d 519 (2000); State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940 (1987); State v. Middleton, 288 S.C. 21, 339 S.E.2d 692 (1986), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872 (1988). 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.