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

Roland Pryor, Sr.,                                                Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina,                                      Respondent.

Appeal From Aiken County
James R. Barber, III, Plea Judge
D. Garrison Hill, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-534
Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed November 19, 2009

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mary S. Williams, all of Columbia, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  This matter is before the Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari following the dismissal of Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief (PCR) and the granting of a belated appeal of Petitioner’s guilty plea to criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree.  On the direct appeal issue, counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting petitioner’s plea was not voluntarily and knowingly made.  Counsel attached to the brief a petition to be relieved, stating that she had reviewed the record and concluded this appeal lacks merit.  Petitioner did not file a separate pro se brief.    

Because evidence supports the PCR judge’s finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986) and White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).

After a thorough review of the record and counsel's brief, pursuant to Anders and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we dismiss Petitioner’s appeal and grant counsel’s motion to be relieved.[1]

APPEAL DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J., and HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.  

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