John Sartin v. State ( 2023 )

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 Court of Appeals
John David Sartin, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001606
Appeal From Pickens County
Alex Kinlaw, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-320
Submitted September 1, 2023 – Filed September 27, 2023
APPEAL DISMISSED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.
Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane
Brown, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from an order of the circuit
court denying his application for post-conviction relief (PCR) but finding he was
entitled to a belated review of his direct appeal issue pursuant to White v. State,
263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).
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 1 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 certiorari on Petitioner's Question 2.
After careful review of Petitioner's brief and the record pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal. Counsel's
motion to be relieved is granted.
APPEAL DISMISSED. 1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.