Freddie Edwards 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 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Freddie Edwards, Appellant, v. The State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appeal From Greenwood County Cordell M. Maddox, Circuit Court Judge William P. Keesley, PCR Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-173 Submitted February 1, 2010 - Filed March 1, 2010 REVERSED AND REMANDED C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Ashley A. McMahan, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Freddie Edwards seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because evidence supports the PCR court's finding that Edwards 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). Edwards appeals the trial court's determination he was not entitled to an involuntary manslaughter charge. We find the evidence presented at trial warranted the requested involuntary manslaughter charge. Accordingly, we reverse[1] and remand Edwards's case for a new trial pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256, 262, 513 S.E.2d 104, 108 (1999) ("[T]he law to be charged is determined from the evidence presented at trial . . . ."); Id. ("The trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence."); State v. Mekler, 379 S.C. 12, 17, 664 S.E.2d 477, 479 (2008) (holding the defendant in a murder trial was entitled to an involuntary manslaughter charge because evidence was presented to support the charge). REVERSED AND REMANDED. PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.