Santiago v. State ( 2015 )

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
Christopher Santiago, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2012-207568
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Beaufort County
Perry M. Buckner, III, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Opinion No. 2015-UP-576
Submitted December 7, 2015 – Filed December 30, 2015
CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY
GRANTED
Richard A. Harpootlian, of Richard A. Harpootlian, PA,
and Graham L. Newman, of Chappell Smith & Arden,
both of Columbia, and M. David Scott, of Jordan, Rauton
& Scott, LLC of Lexington, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan,
Assistant Attorney General Ashleigh Rayanna Wilson,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General James Rutledge
Johnson, and Assistant Attorney General John Croom
Colvin Hunter; all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: After careful consideration of the Appendix and briefs, we now
dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.1
DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 2
HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.
1
See Ellison v. State, 382 S.C. 189, 191, 676 S.E.2d 671, 672 (2009) (wherein our
supreme court extended its decision in two cases to not entertain petitions for a
writ of certiorari "to cases in which the Court of Appeals has issued an order
denying a writ of certiorari in a PCR matter and in cases in which the Court of
Appeals initially issues an order granting a writ of certiorari in such matters but
later issues an opinion dismissing the writ as improvidently granted without
further discussion of the case") (emphasis added).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.