I agree that the post-conviction relief (PCR) order should be revex-sed, but write separately because I believe the case should be decided solely on the successive claim made by the State rather than on the claim of constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Cf., Morris v. Anderson County, 349 S.C. 607, 564 S.E.2d 649 (2002)(Court has well established policy of declining to rule on constitutional claims where they are unnecessary to the result). Here, respondent did not raise the claim that his plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to advise hixn of his right to a direct appeal until his second PCR application. The State ax-gues, pex-suasively in my view, that this claixn was barred as successive. Graham v. State, 378 S.C. 1, 661 S.E.2d 337 (2008). I would revex'se in a memorandum opinion citing Graham.