Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-518 - Duelley v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Edward A. Duelley,        Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina,        Respondent.


Appeal From Richland County
Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-518
Submitted October 1, 2004 – Filed October 14, 2004


APPEAL DISMISSED


Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Andrew F. Lindemann, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Edward Duelley pled guilty to assault and battery with intent to kill, carrying a weapon, larceny, and three counts of armed robbery in February 1980.  He was sentenced to 35 years in prison in South Carolina.  Duelley was later convicted of federal bank robbery charges and also served time in federal prison. 

Duelley filed an appeal with the Administrative Law Judge Division and a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court, claiming the South Carolina Department of Corrections should have given him credit for the time he served in federal prison.  Duelley’s writ of habeas corpus action was stayed pending resolution of his administrative appeal.  Duelley now appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in ruling his petition for habeas corpus and his administrative appeal, both addressing the same issues, could not commence simultaneously.  On appeal, counsel for Duelley has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal and requesting permission to withdraw from further representation.  Duelley filed a pro se response.    

After a thorough review of the record pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss the appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be relieved.

APPEAL DISMISSED. [1]

STILWELL, BEATTY and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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