Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-101 - Harrell 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


Eddie W. Harrell, Appellant,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

__________

Appeal From Richland County
J. Ernest Kinard, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-101
Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed February 26, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Eddie W. Harrell, pro se, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie W. Harrell appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20(b)  (2003) (explaining the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act (the Act) "comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence," and provides the Act "shall be used exclusively in place of them."); Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) (explaining habeas corpus is available only after the petitioner has exhausted all post-conviction remedies and habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or as a remedial procedure for the correction of errors for which a criminal defendant had an opportunity to avail himself); Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37, 42, 495 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1998) ("[P]etitioner must allege sufficient facts to show why other remedies, such as PCR, are unavailable or inadequate."); Keeler v. Mauney, 330 S.C. 568, 571, 500 S.E.2d 123, 124 (Ct. App. 1998) ("A person is procedurally barred  from petitioning the circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus where the matter alleged is one which could have been raised in a PCR application.").

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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