Jamison v. State ( 2012 )

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
Matthew Jamison, Respondent,
v.
State of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Appellate Case No. 2008-106026
Appeal From Richland County
William P. Keesley, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-437
Heard June 21, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
AFFIRMED
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney
Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Tricia A. Blanchette, Law Office of Tricia A. Blanchette,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: The State appeals the grant of Matthew Jamison's second petition
for post-conviction relief (PCR) arguing the petition was successive and should
have been procedurally barred. The State further contends the PCR court erred in
several respects in concluding the petition sufficiently established the existence of
after-discovered evidence warranting the withdrawal of Jamison's guilty plea to
involuntary manslaughter and the granting of a new trial. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-
70(b) (2003) ("When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application . . . that the
applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief . . . it may indicate to the parties
its intention to dismiss the application and its reason for so doing."); id.("Disposition on the pleadings and record is not proper if there exists a material
issue of fact."); Odom v. State, 337 S.C. 256, 261, 523 S.E.2d 753, 755 (1999)
("All applicants are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present claims in one
PCR application.") (emphasis added); Greene v. State, 276 S.C. 213, 214, 277
S.E.2d 481, 481 (1981) ("On appeal from an order granting post-conviction relief,
our review is limited to whether there is any evidence to support the trial court's
findings of fact."); State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 545, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197 (1975)
("A motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial judge."); State v. De Angelis, 256 S.C. 364, 369, 182
S.E.2d 732, 734 (1971) (stating absent error of law or abuse of discretion, this
court will not disturb the trial court's judgment); State v. Wharton, 381 S.C. 209,
215, 672 S.E.2d 786, 789 (2009) ("[T]he applicability of the doctrine of transferred
intent to voluntary manslaughter cases where the defendant kills an unintended
victim upon sufficient legal provocation committed by a third party remains an
unsettled question in South Carolina."); De Angelis, 256 S.C. at 369, 182 S.E.2d at
734 (considering whether the defendant could withdraw his guilty plea based on
after-discovered evidence and stating "there are cases that motions of this character
should be entertained and granted in order that wrongs done may be remedied").
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.