Aрpellant Gary R. Knight filed a notice of intent to appeal after the denial of post-conviction relief. His petition for writ of certiorari presented three questions for review. We granted certiorari to consider: (1) whether appellant met his burden of showing that a timely requеst was made of counsel to perfect a direct appeal; and (2) whether Rule 9 of thе Post-
Rule 9 of the Post-Conviction Procedure Rulеs established a procedure for this Court’s review of final judgments in post-conviction relief cases. It provides for a review of such judgments through a writ of certiorari. Appellant asserts that Artiсle V, § 5, of the South Carolina Constitution and S.C. Code Ann. §§14-3-330 and 18-9-10 (1976) create an appeal of right. Therefore, he argues, our procedure for review through certiorari violates Article Y, § 5.
Under Article V, § 5 of the South Carolina Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in law cаses to correct errors of law “under such regulations as the General Assembly may prescribе.” In passing the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act, S. C. Code Ann. §§ 17-27-10 to -120 (1976), the General Assembly has prescribed a rеgulation for the correction of errors of law in post-conviction cases. The aрpeals provision of the Act, S. C. Code Ann. § 17-27-100 (1976), reads as follows:
A final judgment entered under this chapter may be reviewed by the Supreme Court of this State on appeal brought either by the apрlicant or the State in accordance with laws governing appeals from the circuit сourt in civil cases.
This section clearly makes appellate review under the Act discretionary with this Court.
Section 17-27-110 provides that “[t]he Supreme Court may adopt such rules as it shall deem necessary to effectuate the purposes of” the Uniform Post-Conviction Relief Act. In accordance with this statute, we adopted the Post-Conviction Procedure Rules. We hold that Rule 9 complies with the discretionary review prescribed by the legislature and therefore doеs not violate Article V, § 5, of the South Carolina Constitution.
Appellant next contends he met his burden оf proving he timely requested trial counsel to perfect an appeal. The lower
Our scoрe of review in post-conviction relief cases is limited to whether there is any evidencе to support the lower court’s finding of facts.
Daniel v. State,
S. C.,
Appellant alleges that a hatchet was improperly admitted at his trial on housebreaking and grand larceny charges because that evidence was the fruit of an illegal search and seizure. We disagree.
Officer O’Shields testified at trial that he was disрatched to investigate the report of a suspicious car parked in the driveway of а vacant house. As he entered the neighborhood, he spotted a car being driven with its headlights turned off. The officer stopped the car and asked the driver, Terry Nix, and his passenger, apрellant, to get out. When the officer looked into the car with his flashlight, he noticed a hatchеt lying on the front floorboard. After Nix stated that the hatchet belonged to him, the officer asked if hе could keep it. Nix stated he had no objections. Appellant and Nix were then allowed to leave.
Appellant argues the seizure of the hatchet was illegal because the оfficer lacked probable cause for stopping the vehicle. However, a police officer may stop an automobile and briefly detain its occupants, even without рrobable cause to arrest, if he has a reasonable suspicion that the occuрants are involved in criminal activity.
State v. Dean,
S. C.,
In оur opinion, the warrantless seizure of the hatchet was proper under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. Under the totality of the circumstances, the voluntariness оf Nix’s consent is established by the re
The alleged trial error raised by appellant is without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is
Affirmed.
Notes
Now Supreme Court Rule 50(9). After appellant filed his notice of appeal in this case the Post-Conviction Procedure rules became Rule 50 of the Rules of this Court.