James v. State

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

Robert Anthony James, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-480
Heard October 19, 2011 – Filed October 27, 2011   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Anthony James appeals the post-conviction relief (PCR) court's order denying his PCR application.  He contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue for dismissal of his indictments on the ground the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Stepney v. State, 278 S.C. 47, 48, 292 S.E.2d 41, 41 (1982) ("Alleged errors which may be reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time in post-conviction proceedings."); Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 383, 629 S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006) ("In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must prove: (1) that counsel failed to render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case."); Smith v. State, 309 S.C. 413, 415, 424 S.E.2d 480, 481 (1992) (holding a petitioner must prove there is "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different") (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.