From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edmonds v. State

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 25, 2014
Appellate Case No. 2010-168749 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2010-168749 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-260

06-25-2014

Raymond Edmonds, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General David Spencer, and Assistant Attorney General Daniel Gourley, all 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.


Appeal From Richland County

Clifton Newman, Trial Judge

G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Post-Conviction Relief Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General David Spencer, and Assistant Attorney General Daniel Gourley, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: In this appeal from the circuit court's denial of post-conviction relief (PCR), Petitioner argues defense counsel was ineffective in failing to provide an adversarial challenge to the State's case. Petitioner did not raise an argument of per se prejudice at the PCR hearing and this issue was not ruled on by the PCR court. Thus, this issue is not preserved. See Kolle v. State, 386 S.C. 578, 589, 690 S.E.2d 73, 79 (2010) (noting an issue that was neither raised to nor ruled upon by the PCR court is not preserved for appellate review). Petitioner was required to demonstrate "he was prejudiced by counsel's performance in such a manner that, but for counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceedings would have been different." Taylor v. State, 404 S.C. 350, 359, 745 S.E.2d 97, 102 (2013). However, Petitioner failed to challenge the PCR court's determination that he was not prejudiced by defense counsel's representation. Accordingly, this determination is the law of the case. See Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 112, 525 S.E.2d 514, 518 (2000) (stating an unappealed ruling is the law of the case and will not be considered by the court).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Edmonds v. State

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 25, 2014
Appellate Case No. 2010-168749 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2014)
Case details for

Edmonds v. State

Case Details

Full title:Raymond Edmonds, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 25, 2014

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2010-168749 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 25, 2014)