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

Travis L. Allen, Petitioner

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent

Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Plea Judge
 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-359
Submitted June 29, 2007 – Filed August 8, 2007   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen Ratigan, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the partial grant and partial denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).[1]

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari on petitioner’s Question I 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). 

We find no merit to Allen’s argument that the plea judge failed to advise Allen of his right to confront accusers.  The plea judge specifically informed Allen that by pleading guilty, he was giving up his right “to confront witnesses called by the State against [him].”  Accordingly, Allen’s conviction for murder is

AFFIRMED.

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

[1]  Allen argues his plea was not voluntarily made.  The PCR judge rejected this argument finding Allen’s testimony was not credible.  Furthermore, the record from the guilty plea establishes that Allen entered a free, voluntary, and knowing plea.  Because there is evidence in the record to support the PCR judge’s decision, we deny certiorari on Allen’s allegation his plea was involuntarily made.  Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 109-10, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) (explaining that the existence of any evidence is sufficient to uphold the PCR judge’s ruling).