Martin v. State ( 2006 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Henry W. Martin, Jr., Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-006
Submitted January 3, 2006 – Filed January 5, 2006   

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Henry Martin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  He argues the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he should be released from custody for the State’s alleged violations of his due process rights under the South Carolina and United States Constitutions.  The trial court correctly found Martin’s petition failed to allege sufficient facts showing why other remedies, such as Post Conviction Relief (PCR), were unavailable.  See Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) (“A person is procedurally barred from petitioning the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could have been raised in a PCR application.”).  Accordingly, after a thorough review of the record and counsel’s brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Martin’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED.[1]

GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.