Burgess v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Hilton v. Stephon

    Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB (D.S.C. Nov. 13, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    ; Burgess v. State, 402 S.C. 92, 95, 738 S.E.2d 264, 265-66 (Ct. App. 2013) ("Because the State failed to file a Rule 59(e) motion asking the PCR court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the prejudice prong, we find the issue on appeal is not preserved for our review.").

  2. Graham v. South Carolina

    Civil Action No. 6:14-3518-TMC-KFM (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2014)

    The plaintiff claims that he did not knowingly waive his rights to preserve his claims for appellate review, yet the Attorney General's Office and the Judge of the 12th Judicial Circuit are denying the plaintiff due process by not holding an evidentiary hearing. The plaintiff further alleges that the actions of the defendants are contrary to holdings of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Austin and Wilson v. State, 559 S.E.2d 581 (S.C. 2002) and that his contentions are supported by the holding in Burgess v. State, 738 S.E.2d 264 (S.C.Ct.App. 2013) (doc. 1 at 2). The plaintiff states that the defendants have allowed other successive applications to be heard and they have violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights (id. at 4-5).

  3. Witcher v. State

    Appellate Case No. 2011-188050 (S.C. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2015)

    and the PCR court's ruling was in error, the PCR court made no findings of fact as to where the probation violation occurred, and the State made no post-trial motion seeking factual findings or conclusions of law regarding whether venue was proper. See Plyler v. State, 309 S.C. 408, 409, 424 S.E.2d 477, 478 (1992) (finding an issue that was neither raised at the PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is not preserved); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (noting that under our rules of preservation "it is a litigant's duty to bring to the [trial] court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error"); McCall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 359 S.C. 372, 381, 597 S.E.2d 181, 186 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an issue unpreserved where the issue "was clearly addressed to the court by Respondent, but Appellant advanced no arguments on this issue to the circuit court"); Burgess v. State, 402 S.C. 92, 95, 738 S.E.2d 264, 265 (Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, it is incumbent upon a party in a PCR action to file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion in the event the PCR court fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding an issue").AFFIRMED.

  4. Witcher v. State

    2015-UP-336 (S.C. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2015)

    tion violation occurred, and the State made no post-trial motion seeking factual findings or conclusions of law regarding whether venue was proper. See Plyler v. State, 309 S.C. 408, 409, 424 S.E.2d 477, 478 (1992) (finding an issue that was neither raised at the PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is not preserved); S.C. Dep't of Transp. v. First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007) (noting that under our rules of preservation "it is a litigant's duty to bring to the [trial] court's attention any perceived error, and the failure to do so amounts to a waiver of the alleged error"); McCall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 359 S.C. 372, 381, 597 S.E.2d 181, 186 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding an issue unpreserved where the issue "was clearly addressed to the court by Respondent, but Appellant advanced no arguments on this issue to the circuit court"); Burgess v. State, 402 S.C. 92, 95, 738 S.E.2d 264, 265 (Ct. App. 2013) (stating that "to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, it is incumbent upon a party in a PCR action to file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP, ] motion in the event the PCR court fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding an issue"). AFFIRMED.

  5. Rice v. State

    Appellate Case No. 2011-199412 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    We find unpreserved the issues of (1) whether Frierson's testimony was admissible at the PCR hearing under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), SCRE, as a prior inconsistent statement and (2) whether the PCR court erred by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the allegation that Roberts' testimony constituted newly discovered evidence. See Burgess v. State, 402 S.C. 92, 95, 738 S.E.2d 264, 265 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The [South Carolina] [S]upreme [C]ourt emphasized that to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, it is incumbent upon a party in a PCR action to file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP,] motion in the event the PCR court fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding an issue."). Additionally, we find Rice's reliance on Martinez unpersuasive because "the holding in Martinez is limited to federal habeas corpus review and is not applicable to state [PCR] actions."

  6. Rice v. State

    2015-UP-191 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 8, 2015)

    We find unpreserved the issues of (1) whether Frierson's testimony was admissible at the PCR hearing under Rule 801(d)(1)(A), SCRE, as a prior inconsistent statement and (2) whether the PCR court erred by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the allegation that Roberts' testimony constituted newly discovered evidence. See Burgess v. State, 402 S.C. 92, 95, 738 S.E.2d 264, 265 (Ct. App. 2013) ("The [South Carolina] [S]upreme [C]ourt emphasized that to properly preserve an issue for appellate review, it is incumbent upon a party in a PCR action to file a Rule 59(e)[, SCRCP, ] motion in the event the PCR court fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding an issue."). Additionally, we find Rice's reliance on Martinez unpersuasive because "the holding in Martinez is limited to federal habeas corpus review and is not applicable to state [PCR] actions."