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.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Anthony B. Burnside, Appellant,
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appeal From Greenwood County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-282
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 10, 2011
Anthony Burnside, pro se, of Laurens, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Anthony B. Burnside appeals the circuit court's order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as both procedurally barred by the Uniform Post Conviction Act (the Act) and moot. On appeal, Burnside argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel in perfecting his appeal and prejudiced by a conflict of interest of his PCR counsel. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Jones v. Lott, 387 S.C. 339, 346, 692 S.E.2d 900, 903-04 (2010) ("Under the two issue rule, where a decision is based on more than one ground, the appellate court will affirm unless the appellant appeals all grounds because the unappealed ground will become law of the case."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-20(b) (2003) ("[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."); Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43, 46, 495 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1998) ("[A] matter which is cognizable under the Act may not be raised by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus before the circuit court or other lower courts."); Gibson v. State, 329 S.C. 37, 42, 495 S.E.2d 426, 428 (1998) ("[A] petitioner must allege sufficient facts to show why other remedies, such as [post-conviction relief], are unavailable or inadequate.").
FEW, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.