From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blash v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 7, 2020
2020-UP-281 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020)

Opinion

2020-UP-281

10-07-2020

Eddie Blash, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2017-001839

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, and Eddie Blash, Jr., pro se, for Petitioner. Assistant Attorney General Lindsey Ann McCallister, of Columbia, for Respondent.


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.

Submitted September 1, 2020

Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Resentencing Judge Paul M. Burch, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, and Eddie Blash, Jr., pro se, for Petitioner.

Assistant Attorney General Lindsey Ann McCallister, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because evidence supports the PCR court's finding Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on this issue and proceed with a review of his direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the plea court erred by admitting his criminal record from Florida into evidence. However, because this issue was not raised to the resentencing court, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge. Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."). Accordingly, after consideration of Appellant's pro se brief and review pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we dismiss Petitioner's direct appeal. Counsel's motion to be relieved is granted.

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

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blash v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Oct 7, 2020
2020-UP-281 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020)
Case details for

Blash v. State

Case Details

Full title:Eddie Blash, Jr., Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Oct 7, 2020

Citations

2020-UP-281 (S.C. Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2020)