Pelzer v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Willie Pelzer, III, Petitioner,
    v.
    State of South Carolina, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2013-000731
    Lower Court Case No. 2010-CP-09-00189
    Appeal From Calhoun County
    The Honorable Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
    Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-045
    Submitted July 2, 2015 – Filed July 29, 2015
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
    Petitioner.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
    Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, of
    Columbia, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
    application for post-conviction relief (PCR).
    Because petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct
    appeal, we granted certiorari on August 6, 2014 and now 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 conviction and sentence are affirmed. See State v. Shuler, 
    344 S.C. 604
    , 
    545 S.E.2d 805
    (2001) (stating appellate courts give the trial judge's findings
    from a Batson v. Kentucky, 
    476 U.S. 79
     (1986) hearing "great deference on appeal,
    reviewing the trial judge's ruling with a clearly erroneous standard"); State v.
    Stanko, 
    402 S.C. 252
    , 
    741 S.E.2d 708
     (2013) ("When a trial judge bases the denial
    of a motion for a change of venue because of pre-trial publicity upon an adequate
    voir dire examination of the jurors, his decision will not be disturbed absent
    extraordinary circumstances."); State v. Wright, 
    304 S.C. 529
    , 
    405 S.E.2d 825
    (1991) ("The grant or denial of a motion for continuance is within the sound
    discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse, resulting in
    prejudice to the defendant."); and State v. Todd, 
    290 S.C. 212
    , 
    349 S.E.2d 339
    (1986) ("The law to be charged is determined from the evidence presented at
    trial.").
    AFFIRMED.
    TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, and HEARN, JJ., concur.
    KITTREDGE, J., not participating.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-MO-045

Filed Date: 7/29/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/30/2024