Stepney v. State, 292 S.E.2d 41 (S.C. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Stepney v. State, 292 S.E.2d 41 (S.C. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 · …alleged errors which may be reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time in post-conviction proceedings. at p. 41 ✓
6 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: James v. State (scctapp, 2011-10-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) James v. State (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
alleged errors which may be reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time in post-conviction proceedings.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wolfe v. State (2×)
S.C. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Stepney v. State, 278 S.C. 47 , 292 S.E.2d 41 (1982) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be considered on PCR application absent claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel). 3 . in fact, it is not entirely clear whether Wolfe actually testified there was an absolute guarantee of a reduced sentence.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Judge v. State (2×)
S.C. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Stepney v. State, 278 S.C. 47 , 292 S.E. (2d) 41 (1982) (issues that could have been raised on direct appeal cannot be considered on postconviction relief application absent a claim of ineffective assistance of appellant counsel).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wade June STEPNEY
v.
STATE of South Carolina
21708.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
May 24, 1982.
292 S.E.2d 41
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. WilliamK. Moore, Columbia, for appellant., Appellate Defender John L. Sweeny, of S. C. Com’n ofAppel-late Defense, Columbia, for respondent.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 78%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (2)
Per Curiam:

The respondent was convicted of receiving stolen goods and given a five-year prison sentence suspended upon two years’ probation. While on probation, he pleaded guilty to temporary use of a vehicle without permission and was sentenced to nine months. Because of the offense, an arrest warrant was issued charging him with a probation violation. His probationary sentence was revoked after a hearing.

The respondent then applied for post-conviction relief, alleging his revocation hearing violated due process requirements. The judge granted relief and ordered a new hearing. The State appeals.

Errors in the probation revocation hearing should have been raised by the probationer on direct appeal. State v. Shumate, 276 S. C. 46, 275 S. E. (2d) 288 (1981). Alleged errors which may be reviewed on direct appeal may not be asserted for the first time in post-conviction proceedings. Cummings v. State, 274 S. C. 26, 260 S. E. (2d) 187 (1979).

We conclude the matter was not properly before the post conviction hearing judge. Therefore we reverse the grant of post-conviction relief and reinstate the sentence.