Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 117 , 406 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1991) (Upon the receipt of an Anders brief and “the receipt of the pro se brief or the expiration of the period to file a pro se brief, this Court will then proceed to review the record as required by Anders . 2013See State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 117 , 406 S.E.2d 357, 358 (1991) (Upon the receipt of an Anders brief and “the receipt of the pro se brief or the expiration of the period to file a pro se brief, this Court will then proceed to review the record as required by Anders . | 1 | 3 |
Smith v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2015Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (even if appellate counsel believes an appeal is without merit and files an Anders brief, the appellant may have been entitled to a merits brief, and the challenge to appellate counsel's performance should be reviewed under Strickland); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303 , 680 S.E.2d 273 (2009) (even where an Anders brief is filed, when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this Court applies the Strickland test). 2009See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 284 , 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000) (finding that even where appellate counsel believes his client’s appeal is without merit and thus files an Anders brief, the appellant may have been entitled to a merits brief and the challenge of appellate counsel’s performance should be reviewed under Strickland.) | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Miller v. State, 388 S.C. 347, 347 , 697 S.E.2d 527, 527 (2010) ("Since there is no right to 'hybrid representation' that is partially pro se and partially by counsel, substantive documents, with the exception of motions to relieve counsel, filed pro se by a person represented by counsel are not to be accepted unless submitted by counsel."). 2 We decide this case without argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. 2024See Miller v. State, 388 S.C. 347, 347 , 697 S.E.2d 527, 527 (2010) ("Since there is no right to 'hybrid representation' that is partially pro se and partially by counsel, substantive documents, with the exception of motions to relieve counsel, filed pro se by a person represented by counsel are not to be accepted unless submitted by counsel."). 2 We decide this case without argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2023Compare Wilson, 389 S.C. at 585 , 698 S.E.2d at 865 (concluding the defendant was not required to accept a curative instruction or make another mistrial motion because his objection had been overruled; therefore, the denial of his mistrial motion was preserved), with State v. Banton, 387 S.C. 412, 418 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 204 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting that when the defendant objected to certain testimony and moved for a mistrial, by rejecting the trial court's offer to give a curative 8 PCR counsel stated Petitioner raised the denial of the mistrial motion issue on direct appeal in an Anders brief, | 1 | 1 |
State v. BANTANgreen2 sentences2023Compare Wilson, 389 S.C. at 585 , 698 S.E.2d at 865 (concluding the defendant was not required to accept a curative instruction or make another mistrial motion because his objection had been overruled; therefore, the denial of his mistrial motion was preserved), with State v. Banton, 387 S.C. 412, 418 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 204 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting that when the defendant objected to certain testimony and moved for a mistrial, by rejecting the trial court's offer to give a curative 8 PCR counsel stated Petitioner raised the denial of the mistrial motion issue on direct appeal in an Anders brief, 2023Compare Wilson, 389 S.C. at 585 , 698 S.E.2d at 865 (concluding the defendant was not required to accept a curative instruction or make another mistrial motion because his objection had been overruled; therefore, the denial of his mistrial motion was preserved), with State v. Banton, 387 S.C. 412, 418 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 204 (Ct. App. 2010) (noting that when the defendant objected to certain testimony and moved for a mistrial, by rejecting the trial court's offer to give a curative 8 PCR counsel stated Petitioner raised the denial of the mistrial motion issue on direct appeal in an Anders brief, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lylesgreen2 sentences2013Alternatively, the State, quoting State v. Lyles, 381 S.C. 442, 444-45 , 673 S.E.2d 811, 813 (2009), acknowledges that “a decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing an appeal after conducting a review pursuant to Anders is not a decision on the merits of the appeal, but simply reflects that the appellate court was unable to ascertain a non-frivolous issue which would require counsel to file a merits brief.” The State asserts if the issue was not considered on the merits, McHam still did not show prejudice, as officer safety justified the officer’s actions. 2013Alternatively, the State, quoting State v. Lyles, 381 S.C. 442, 444-45 , 673 S.E.2d 811, 813 (2009), acknowledges that “a decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing an appeal after conducting a review pursuant to Anders is not a decision on the merits of the appeal, but simply reflects that the appellate court was unable to ascertain a non-frivolous issue which would require counsel to file a merits brief.” The State asserts if the issue was not considered on the merits, McHam still did not show prejudice, as officer safety justified the officer’s actions. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2008After a thorough review of the record, Perry’s response, and counsel’s brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Williams , 305 S.C. 116 , 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Perry’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1] APPEAL DISMISSED. 2004Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rayfield’s appellate counsel filed an appeal and a petition to be relieved as counsel, arguing in the Anders brief that the trial court erred in consolidating the charges. | 3 | 2002–2008 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2023The State has not objected to any of these filings; therefore, this court (1) grants Petitioner a belated direct appeal of his conviction pursuant to White, (2) accepts the Anders brief filed by Petitioner's appellate counsel and the pro se Anders brief filed by Petitioner, (3) dispenses with further briefing, and (4) will proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290 , 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). 2023The State has not objected to any of these filings; therefore, this court (1) grants Petitioner a belated direct appeal of his conviction pursuant to White, (2) accepts the Anders brief filed by Petitioner's appellate counsel and the pro se Anders brief filed by Petitioner, (3) dispenses with further briefing, and (4) will proceed with a review of the direct appeal issues pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290 , 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2015Instead, his decision was based solely on his finding that petitioner failed "to rebut the presumption of regularity in the Court of Appeals' Anders review." In order to show prejudice from appellate counsel's performance when an Anders brief is filed, the test enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), should be applied. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Bennett v. State
green
2 sentences2015Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (even if appellate counsel believes an appeal is without merit and files an Anders brief, the appellant may have been entitled to a merits brief, and the challenge to appellate counsel's performance should be reviewed under Strickland); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303 , 680 S.E.2d 273 (2009) (even where an Anders brief is filed, when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this Court applies the Strickland test). 2015Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (even if appellate counsel believes an appeal is without merit and files an Anders brief, the appellant may have been entitled to a merits brief, and the challenge to appellate counsel's performance should be reviewed under Strickland); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303 , 680 S.E.2d 273 (2009) (even where an Anders brief is filed, when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this Court applies the Strickland test). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Chisolm
green
2 sentences2004This court denied counsel’s petition to be relieved and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether, in light of this court’s decision in State v. Chisolm , 355 S.C. 175 , 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct. App. 2003), the trial court erred in denying Rayfield’s motion to suppress the crack cocaine evidence based on the ground that the State failed to prove a sufficient chain of custody. 2004This court denied counsel’s petition to be relieved and ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether, in light of this court’s decision in State v. Chisolm , 355 S.C. 175 , 584 S.E.2d 401 (Ct. App. 2003), the trial court erred in denying Rayfield’s motion to suppress the crack cocaine evidence based on the ground that the State failed to prove a sufficient chain of custody. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.