Mar 19, 2012 | Burglary/Robbery/Larceny, Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Tyler Burns is a former 16th Circuit (York County) prosecutor and Art Aiken is a accomplished criminal attorney who has tried virtually every type of criminal case in both state and federal courts. And, Bea Hightower is a former Richland County public defender in Columbia. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials and experience to any other law firm. Then call us at 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Ervin McMillian, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Richland County
James R. Barber, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Opinion No. 26688
Submitted April 22, 2009 – Filed July 20, 2009
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of South Carolina Office of Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley E. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
JUSTICE BEATTY: Ervin McMillian[1] filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of an order denying his application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We granted the petition to decide the following question: Was counsel ineffective for advising McMillian that the intent to commit a crime could be inferred from the act of trespassing, such that it would provide a factual basis to support a plea to first-degree burglary? We hold counsel was not ineffective and affirm.
FACTS
McMillian was charged with first-degree burglary as a result of an incident that occurred in Columbia, South Carolina on April 10, 2004. At approximately 1:00 a.m. on that date, McMillian knocked on the door of the home of Lanelle Hicks and her adult son, Mark Hicks. Lanelle Hicks looked out a window and saw McMillian, so she went to her son’s room to wake him. At that point, McMillian’s knocking turned into beating on the door, and then he crashed the door open, damaging the door. As soon as McMillian entered the house, however, Mark Hicks took McMillian back outside and held him there with the assistance of a neighbor until the police arrived.
McMillian subsequently pled guilty to the charge of first-degree burglary. At the plea proceeding, McMillian stated that he “had been drinking and drugging” (with crack cocaine) the night of the incident and that he thought someone was chasing him and trying to kill him. McMillian maintained he knocked on the door of the Hicks home in order to get some help, but he admitted that he pushed the door open to get inside the home. McMillian stated he believed he “was justified in asking for help,” but admitted that he “know[s] that [he] did wrong.”
In contrast, the solicitor advised the plea judge that according to the victims they never heard McMillian ask for help and “he never asked for the police. All he did was kick their door in and rip the door jam off.” Earlier in the plea proceeding, the solicitor noted that McMillian has a criminal record dating back to 1977 that includes prior convictions for, among other things, housebreaking, malicious injury to real property, second-degree burglary, and strong armed robbery.
In a separate sentencing proceeding, McMillian again admitted he “pushed the door open,” but maintained he did not “go there with the intent to take anything.” The plea judge sentenced McMillian to nineteen years in prison for first-degree burglary. No direct appeal was taken.
McMillian filed a PCR application. At the PCR hearing, McMillian asserted, among his claims, that his attorney did not explain to him that the State must prove not only that he had broken into the victims’ home, but that he did so with the intent to commit a crime. He maintained he would have exercised his right to go to trial and would not have pled guilty if his attorney had properly advised him that there was no evidence to support an inference of his intent to commit a crime.
McMillian’s counsel testified that she believed there was evidence of intent to commit a crime and that she had advised McMillian of all the elements of first-degree burglary. Counsel stated, “I explained that to Mr. McMillian, that the intent could be inferred from the trespassing because it was not his property, and he was illegally on someone else’s property, and he broke the door down of — pushed the door open. I said that it could be inferred from — trespass could be with the intent to commit a crime. Trespass could be inferred from these actions.”
Counsel stated she hired a private investigator to look into McMillian’s story that he had been chased by someone and, “[a]fter a period of time . . . he [McMillian] said the person kind of existed in his head, I guess.” She said a neighbor saw McMillian “looking in the windows of the home prior to him just bursting in the door.” Thus, she could not substantiate McMillian’s claim that he believed someone was chasing him.
McMillian’s PCR attorney contended McMillian’s assertion that he was high on drugs and thought he was being chased when he went to the home did not support a charge of first-degree burglary, as he had no intent to commit a crime, and plea counsel erred in advising him that intent to commit a crime could be inferred from an act of trespass.
The PCR judge denied McMillian’s application and found the allegation that there was no factual basis to support a plea to first-degree burglary was without merit. The judge noted: “Counsel testified that had she gone to trial, intent to commit a crime could be inferred from the act of trespassing. Applicant testified that he did not own the house and did not have permission to enter the house. Further, the evidence suggested that he physically broke the door open to enter. Accordingly, this allegation is denied and dismissed.”
McMillian’s attorney submitted a Johnson[2] petition for a writ of certiorari to review the PCR order. This Court directed the parties to brief the following issue: Was counsel ineffective in advising McMillian that the intent to commit a crime could be inferred from the act of trespassing, such that it would provide a factual basis to support a plea to first-degree burglary?
LAW/ANALYSIS
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Lomax v. State, 379 S.C. 93, 665 S.E.2d 164 (2008).
The United States Supreme Court has announced a two-pronged test to establish ineffective assistance of counsel by which a PCR applicant must show (1) counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687; Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989). Under the second prong, the PCR applicant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
The two-part test adopted in Strickland also “applies to challenges to guilty pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985). In the context of a guilty plea, the applicant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Id. at 59. “The longstanding test for determining the validity of a guilty plea is ‘whether the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’” Id. at 56 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970)).
“In a PCR proceeding, the burden is on the applicant to prove the allegations in his application.” Lounds v. State, 380 S.C. 454, 460, 670 S.E.2d 646, 649 (2008). “In resolving PCR issues relating to guilty pleas, it is proper to consider the guilty plea transcript as well as the evidence at the PCR hearing.” Pelzer v. State, 381 S.C. 217, 222, 672 S.E.2d 790, 792 (Ct. App. 2009).
“This Court will uphold the findings of the PCR judge when there is any evidence of probative value to support them.” Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554, 558, 640 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2007). “This Court will reverse the PCR judge’s decision when it is controlled by an error of law.” Id. at 558-59, 640 S.E.2d at 886.
First-degree burglary is a statutory offense in South Carolina that is defined as follows: “A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and” any one of several enumerated aggravating circumstances exists. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-311(A) (2003) (emphasis added). In this case, the aggravating circumstance is “the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime.” Id. § 16-11-311(A)(3).
On review, McMillian asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel because “[t]here is ambiguous precedent on whether one can infer intent [to commit a crime] from trespassing.”
This Court has previously held that for a charge under the old statute of housebreaking, i.e., breaking and entering into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony or a crime of a lesser grade, found in section 1139 of the South Carolina Code of 1932, the element of intent to commit a crime of a lesser grade could be satisfied by a trespass. See State v. Christensen, 194 S.C. 131, 9 S.E.2d 555 (1940). In Christensen, “the defendant was convicted of breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit, a trespass” after the defendant, who was an agent of the landlord, went into a tenant’s dwelling with the specific intent of taking personal property to sell for overdue rent. Id. at 138, 9 S.E.2d at 558.
The Christensen Court cited a prior decision that stated the mere breaking and entering of a house is not a crime under the statute prohibiting the breaking and entering into a dwelling with the intent to commit a felony or a crime of a lesser grade,[3] but found that if Christensen were guilty of a trespass, “[i]t was for the jury to say whether such breaking and entry under the circumstances constituted a crime under Section 1139 and the finding of the jury on this issue will not be disturbed by this Court.” Id. at 137-39, 9 S.E.2d at 558-59.
McMillian argues counsel was ineffective in advising him that intent to commit a crime could be inferred from a trespass. We disagree. In its general sense, to “trespass” is “to make an unwarranted or uninvited incursion” onto the property of another. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2439 (2002).[4]
Certainly, a jury would have been free to disbelieve McMillian’s version of events and find that he had the intent to commit a crime based on his conduct at the time of this offense. In State v. Haney, 257 S.C. 89, 91, 184 S.E.2d 344, 345 (1971), this Court observed that “proof of intent necessarily rests on inference from conduct.” We noted the unexplained breaking and entry of a dwelling in the night is itself evidence of intent to commit larceny:
When the building entered is a dwelling house, the weight of authority holds that the unexplained breaking and entry in the night is itself evidence of intent to commit larceny rather than some other crime. ‘The fundamental theory, in the absence of other intent or explanation for breaking and entering, is that the usual object or purpose of burglarizing a dwelling house at night is theft.’ 13 Am.Jur.2d Burglary, Sec. 52 (1964). Id. at 91-92, 184 S.E.2d at 345. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court of Wyoming, which stated:
The law is well settled and widespread that where one breaks into the property of another in the nighttime, an inference may be drawn that he did so with the intent to commit larceny. A reasonable mind recognizes that people do not usually break into and enter the building of another under the shroud of darkness with innocent intent and that the most usual intent is to steal. . . . Direct evidence to prove intent is not necessary. . . . Proof of intent is not a precise process. Mirich v. State, 593 P.2d 590, 593 (Wyo. 1979).
Moreover, even if we interpret McMillian’s argument as being that counsel was ineffective because she referred to unlawful trespass and he did not meet the elements of an unlawful trespass because there was no entry after notice, we find there is no merit to this allegation. There was notice against entry in this case because, as we noted in Christensen, “the presence of closed doors and locked windows [i]s notice to the world that entry is forbidden.” Christensen, 194 S.C. at 141, 9 S.E.2d at 560.
McMillian was facing a possible sentence of life in prison[5] and, based on the colloquy in the transcript, it appears he had hoped for a suspended sentence of less than fifteen years. When that did not occur, he brought this PCR action. We hold that the fact that counsel advised McMillian that a jury could disbelieve his version of events and could find that he entered the dwelling without consent and with the intent to commit a crime was not erroneous advice and counsel was not deficient in her representation. Accordingly, the PCR judge did not err in denying McMillian’s PCR application.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the order of the PCR judge is
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J. and KITTREDGE, J., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion in which WALLER, J., concurs.
JUSTICE PLEICONES: I agree with the majority that counsel was not ineffective in advising petitioner that a jury could find the requisite intent to commit a crime for purposes of burglary from his trespass into the Hicks’ home. I write separately, however, as I do not join the discussion of statutory “trespass after notice” as I believe it is not implicated by these facts. See State v. Bradley, 126 S.C. 528, 120 S.E. 240 (1923); State v. Cross, 323 S.C. 41, 448 S.E.2d 569 (Ct. App. 1994) (common law trespass discussed).
WALLER, J., concurs.
[1] Ervin McMillian is also referred to as “Ervin Britton” in various documents in the Appendix.
[2] Johnson v. State, 294 S.C. 310, 364 S.E.2d 201 (1988).
[3] The Christensen Court cited State v. Clark, 85 S.C. 273, 67 S.E. 300 (1910), which provides in relevant part as follows:
The first count of the indictment is laid under section 145 of the Criminal Code, which is as follows: “Every person who shall break and enter, or who shall break with intent to enter, in the day time, any dwelling house or other house, or who shall break and enter, or shall break with intent to enter, in the night time, any house, the breaking and entering of which would not constitute burglary, with intent to commit a felony or other crime of a lesser grade, shall be held guilty of a felony,” etc. Under this statute, the mere breaking of a house is not a crime, nor is the mere breaking and entering of a house, or the mere breaking with intent to enter a house any crime. It is only when there is a breaking and entering, or a breaking with intent to enter, “with intent to commit a felony, or other crime of a lesser grade” that the crime denounced by the statute is complete. Id. at 277-78, 67 S.E. at 302 (emphasis in original).
[4] In contrast, an unlawful trespass, or what is commonly called trespass after notice, is distinguishable and is prohibited by section 16-11-620 of the South Carolina Code, which provides as follows:
Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-620 (2003).
[5] First-degree burglary is a felony punishable by life imprisonment, although the court, in its discretion, may sentence a defendant to a term of not less than fifteen years. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-311(B) (2003).
Mar 19, 2012 | Assault and Battery, Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Tyler Burns is a former 16th Circuit (York County) prosecutor and Art Aiken is a accomplished criminal attorney who has tried virtually every type of criminal case in both state and federal courts. And, Bea Hightower is a former Richland County public defender in Columbia. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials and experience to any other law firm. Then call us at 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Jack R. Bennett, Respondent,
v.
State of South Carolina, Petitioner.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal from Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 26658
Submitted March 18, 2009 – Re-filed July 13, 2009
REVERSED
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Karen Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, and Susannah Conyers Ross, of Ross & Enderlin, of Greenville, for Respondent.
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: In this case, we granted a writ of certiorari to review the post-conviction relief (PCR) court’s grant of Respondent Jack Randall Bennett’s request for relief. The State argues that the PCR court erred in ruling that Respondent received ineffective assistance of trial counsel and appellate counsel. We find that Respondent’s trial counsel and appellate counsel were not ineffective and reverse the PCR court’s grant of relief.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On the evening of October 13, 1998, Respondent was at the home of Robert Garland (the Victim) in Marietta, South Carolina. Also present were Lisa Ward (Ms. Ward) and Respondent’s wife, Elizabeth Bennett (Ms. Bennett). Respondent and the Victim drank large quantities of beer and moonshine throughout the evening. Additionally, Respondent admits to ingesting multiple Valium pills. During the course of the evening, Respondent became violent with Ms. Bennett. The Victim and Ms. Ward ejected Respondent from the home. Breaking through the front door, Respondent re-entered the Victim’s home and beat him severely.
In January 2001, Respondent was tried for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK), possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and first-degree burglary. Ms. Bennett was not present for the trial but the trial court admitted her out-of-court statements.
Ms. Ward testified that while Respondent was assaulting the Victim, Ms. Bennett hysterically screamed, “He’s going to kill me.” Trial counsel objected to the admission of the statement on hearsay grounds. The trial judge ruled that Ms. Bennett’s statement was an excited utterance, and thus admissible as an exception to the rule excluding hearsay testimony. Ms. Ward continued her testimony stating that as the two women were exiting the home, Ms. Bennett screamed, “[p]lease hurry, please hurry, because if he gets hold of me, he’s going to kill me.” Trial counsel did not renew his objection.
Next, the State presented Officer Keith Morecraft to read into evidence a statement he took from Ms. Bennett at the crime scene ninety (90) minutes to two hours after the crime had occurred. Trial counsel objected on both hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. The trial court overruled the objection and allowed Officer Morecraft to read the statement into evidence.
The jury found Respondent guilty and sentenced him to concurrent terms of eighteen (18) years for ABWIK, five (5) years for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and eighteen (18) years for first-degree burglary. Appellate counsel filed an appeal pursuant to Anders,[1] which the court of appeals dismissed. State v. Bennett, Op. No. 2002-UP-452 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 20, 2002). Respondent filed an application for PCR. After a hearing, the PCR court granted Respondent’s request for relief. The PCR court found that trial counsel provided Respondent with ineffective assistance in failing to adequately object to the admission of Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statements. The PCR court also found that appellate counsel provided Respondent with ineffective assistance in failing to brief issues concerning the admission of Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statements.[2]
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In post-conviction relief proceedings, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove the allegations in his application. Butler v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 442, 334 S.E.2d 813, 814 (1985). If the PCR court’s finding is supported by any evidence of probative value in the record, it should be upheld. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989).
LAW/ANALYSIS
The State argues the PCR court erred in granting relief on the grounds that trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance to Respondent. We agree.
For an applicant to be granted post-conviction relief as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must show that 1) counsel’s performance was deficient,[3] and 2) he was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance.[4] See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984); Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 383, 629 S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006).
I. Trial Counsel
The State argues that the PCR court erred in finding trial counsel ineffective. We agree.
We find that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient and, therefore, his assistance was not ineffective. Trial counsel clearly objected on hearsay grounds to the admission of Ms. Ward’s testimony concerning Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statement. The trial court correctly ruled that the statements were admissible as excited utterances and overruled trial counsel’s objection.[5] Trial counsel’s decision not to renew his objection to Ms. Ward’s continuing testimony as to Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statements did not constitute deficient assistance. The second statement offered by Ms. Ward was essentially identical to the first; therefore, because the trial court had already ruled on the issue, it was not necessary for trial counsel to renew his objection. See State v. McDaniel, 320 S.C. 33, 37, 462 S.E.2d 882, 884 (Ct. App. 1995) (“so long as the judge had an opportunity to rule on an issue, and did so, it was not incumbent upon defense counsel to harass the judge by parading the issue before him again.”).
Additionally, trial counsel clearly objected to the admission of Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statement given to Officer Morecraft. Trial counsel made this objection on multiple relevant grounds and argued it forcefully. Because trial counsel unmistakably represented the interests of his client on this issue, his performance was not deficient.
We find that there is no evidence of probative value in the record to support the PCR court’s finding that trial counsel’s performance was deficient. Therefore, with respect to the PCR court’s grant of Respondent’s requested relief on the grounds of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, we reverse.
II. Appellate Counsel
The State argues that the PCR court erred in finding appellate counsel ineffective. We agree.
A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to the effective assistance of appellate counsel. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 398 (1985). However, counsel is not required to raise every non-frivolous claim, but may select among them in order to maximize the likelihood of a favorable outcome. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 288 (2000).
Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this Court applies the Strickland test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.[6] See Southerland v. State, 337 S.C. 610, 616, 524 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1999). Thus, in this case, we ask 1) whether appellate counsel’s performance was deficient, and 2) whether Respondent was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s deficient performance.
Even if appellate counsel’s performance was deficient, we find that such performance did not prejudice Respondent. In order to show that he was prejudiced by appellate counsel’s performance, a PCR applicant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cherry, 300 S.C. at 117-18, 386 S.E.2d at 625. Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statements admitted at trial were cumulative evidence and not necessary to prove Respondent’s guilt. Appellate counsel’s performance did not prejudice Respondent and was, therefore, not ineffective.
Accordingly, we find that the PCR court erred in finding that Respondent received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the PCR court erred in ruling that trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective, and we reverse the PCR court’s order granting relief.
WALLER, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
[1] Pursuant to Anders v. California, “if [appellate] counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw.” 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
[2] The issue appellate counsel briefed in the Anders appeal was unrelated to the admission of Ms. Bennett’s out-of-court statements.
[3] In order to prove that counsel’s performance was deficient, an applicant must show that his counsel failed to render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. at 117-18, 386 S.E.2d at 625.
[4] In order to prove that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s deficiency, an applicant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 117-18, 386 S.E.2d 624, 625 (1989). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of trial.” Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 186, 480 S.E.2d 733, 735 (1997).
[5] Additionally, Respondent’s own defense that he was entering the home to protect Ms. Bennett opened the door to these statements.
[6] Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, as opposed to a brief on the merits. Even in this context, when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we apply the Strickland test. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 284 (2000) (finding that even where appellate counsel believes his client’s appeal is without merit and thus files an Anders brief, the appellant may have been entitled to a merits brief and the challenge of appellate counsel’s performance should be reviewed under Stickland.)
Mar 18, 2012 | Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Uncategorized
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Tyler Burns is a former 16th Circuit (York County) prosecutor, and Art Aiken is a accomplished criminal attorney who has tried virtually every type of criminal case in both state and federal courts. And, Bea Hightower is a former Richland County public defender in Columbia. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials and experience to any other law firm. Then call us at 877-374-5999 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Donald D. Berry, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Cherokee County
Doyet A. Early, III, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
Opinion No. 26618
Submitted November 19, 2008 – Filed March 23, 2009
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, 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 S. Prentiss Counts, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
JUSTICE KITTREDGE: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of Donald D. Berry’s application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Berry pled guilty to a drug charge, second offense, and was sentenced to prison. The prior offense for enhancement purposes was a drug paraphernalia conviction. Because a drug paraphernalia conviction does not qualify as a prior offense for enhancement purposes under South Carolina’s statutory scheme and plea counsel neither informed Berry of this fact nor made an objection in the plea court, we reverse the denial of PCR, vacate the guilty plea, and remand to the general sessions court.
I.
Berry pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine, second offense, and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The plea was enhanced to a second offense by Berry’s prior conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. As part of the plea agreement, an accompanying possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine charge was dismissed. The PCR court found Berry did not establish his entitlement to relief and denied his application. Berry sought a writ of certiorari, which we granted.
Section 44-53-470 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2007) states, “[a]n offense is considered a second or subsequent offense if . . . the offender has been convicted within the previous ten years of a violation of a provision of this article or of another state or federal statute relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, or hallucinogenic drugs . . . .” Additionally, section 44-53-375(B)(2) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2007) provides the following requirements for an enhanced offense:
[F]or a second offense or if, in the case of a first conviction of a violation of this section, the offender has been convicted of any of the laws of the United States or of any state, territory, or district relating to narcotic drugs, marijuana, depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogenic drugs, the offender must be imprisoned for not less than five years nor more than thirty years, or fined not more than fifty thousand dollars, or both.
II.
Whether a drug paraphernalia conviction qualifies as a prior offense for enhancement purposes has not been decided by this Court. The question is one of statutory construction. See State v. Dingle, 376 S.C. 643, 649, 659 S.E.2d 101, 105 (2008) (“In interpreting statutes, the Court looks to the plain meaning of the statute and the intent of the Legislature.”). Moreover, in construing a criminal statute, we are guided by the rule of lenity—the principle that any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the accused. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 273, 403 S.E.2d 660, 662 (1991) (“[W]hen a statute is penal in nature, it must be construed strictly against the State and in favor of the defendant.”). We hold that the Legislature intended a prior offense to qualify for enhancement purposes only if the prior offense “relates to” one of the statutorily enumerated drugs.
To construe a paraphernalia conviction as “relating to” drugs would be contrary to unambiguously expressed legislative intent and additionally violate the rule of lenity long established in our jurisprudence. Moreover, were we to construe the phrase “relate to” so loosely as to include a paraphernalia conviction, there would essentially be no limitation for qualifying enhancement offenses. We therefore hold that a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia may not be used for enhancement purposes as it does not “relate to” drugs as statutorily mandated.
III.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
We now turn to Berry’s PCR claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, a PCR applicant must prove deficient representation and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
Where a defendant pleads guilty upon the advice of counsel, post-conviction relief is available only when the applicant proves the advice he received from counsel “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and that “but for” counsel’s deficient representation, he would not have pled guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-59 (1985). Plea counsel for Berry acknowledges he neither challenged the State’s reliance on the paraphernalia conviction for enhancement purposes, nor informed Berry of the potential challenge.
A. Deficient Representation
We find plea counsel’s failure to inform Berry of the potential challenge of the use of the paraphernalia conviction for enhancement purposes amounts to deficient representation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687. In so ruling, we recognize that a defendant, for a host of legitimate reasons, may plead guilty to an offense for which a valid legal challenge may exist. See Rollison v. State, 346 S.C. 506, 510, 552 S.E.2d 290, 292 (2001) (“A defendant may, as part of a plea bargain, agree to plead guilty to a crime for which he has been indicted (or to which he has waived grand jury presentment), but of which he is not guilty.”); Anderson v. State, 342 S.C. 54, 58, 535 S.E.2d 649, 651 (2000) (“We find the decision to accept a plea to voluntary manslaughter notwithstanding the lack of any provocation was simply a tactical maneuver to avoid the very real possibility that the jury might come back with a verdict of murder. Accordingly, we find the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.”). The difference in such circumstances between a valid guilty plea and an invalid guilty plea lies in the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. Here, counsel never informed Berry of the potential challenge to the use of the drug paraphernalia conviction for enhancement. In fact, Berry’s plea counsel never gave any thought to the issue.
We believe the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel requires that counsel accurately inform a defendant, to the extent possible, of the qualifying nature of a prior offense for enhancement purposes. It may well be that in situations unlike the one before us, the answer is unclear. Yet, an accused is entitled to counsel’s considered and reasonable judgment.[1] In fact, uncertainty concerning a potential legal challenge may well provide a defendant a catalyst in plea negotiations with the State. In this regard, a defendant may choose to forgo a legal challenge and opt for what he considers a favorable plea arrangement, especially where other charges will be dismissed or sentences are run concurrently.
This “give and take” lies at the heart of virtually every guilty plea, as plea agreements allow our overly burdened criminal courts to function. The point, for purposes of the issue before us, is that such decisions must be made knowingly and voluntarily with the advice of constitutionally competent counsel. Simply saying “I never gave it a thought” falls short of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel. As a result, we find counsel’s failure to even consider whether a paraphernalia conviction qualifies for enhancement, and so inform Berry, fell below the standard of objective reasonableness. We therefore find plea counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation.
B. Prejudice
We next turn to the second step in the analysis—whether Berry was prejudiced by the deficient representation. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687. As this was a guilty plea, Berry “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill, 474 U.S. at 59. During the PCR hearing, Berry repeatedly said that he would have gone to trial had he known that his paraphernalia conviction did not qualify as a prior offense for enhancement purposes. Cf. Robinson v. State, Op. No. 26564 (S.C.Sup.Ct. filed Nov. 24, 2008) (Shearouse Adv.Sh. No. 43 at 25) (granting post-conviction relief and remanding for resentencing where prior uncounseled conviction was improperly used for enhancement and applicant insisted that he wanted to plead guilty free of the “unconstitutional prior conviction[]”). We find Berry has established the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, and we grant him the relief he requests.
IV.
We grant Berry post-conviction relief and return him to his pre-guilty plea position. Berry’s conviction and sentence for manufacturing methamphetamine are vacated. Because the accompanying indictment for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine was dismissed as part of the plea bargain, it is restored as an active charge. We remand these charges to the general sessions court for disposition.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TOAL, C.J., WALLER, and BEATTY, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., not participating.
[1] While the case at hand concerns use of prior convictions for enhancement purposes, this reference to an accused’s entitlement to counsel’s considered and reasonable judgment clearly has broad application in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence.
Mar 15, 2012 | Drug Crimes and Controlled Substances Defense, Uncategorized
This SC Supreme Court case discusses when and under what circumstances police may search the interior of a car incident to a lawful stop. As the decision points out, suppressing evidence found during such a search can prove critical to an acquittal or prison term. Here, the search was deemed illegal, but the lawyer’s failure to file a timely appeal rendered the violation of his Fourth Amendment rights moot. The client received a sentence of 25 years. In criminal defense cases, it is necessary to challenge every aspect of a stop, search, and arrest at trial. Search issues can be very complicated and case specific. Better make sure your criminal defense attorney understands the rules and is willing to fight for your rights in court. There is too much at stake to risk an inexperienced or timid lawyer.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Tyler Burns is a former 16th Circuit (York County) prosecutor, and Art Aiken is a accomplished criminal attorney who has tried virtually every type of criminal case in both state and federal courts. And, Bea Hightower is a former Richland County public defender in Columbia. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials and experience to any other law firm. Then call us at 803-548-4444 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Osiel Gomez Narciso, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Appeal From Beaufort County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 27104
Heard January 25, 2012 – Filed March 14, 2012
AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART
Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew J. Friedman, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
CHIEF JUSTICE TOAL: Oseil Gomez Narciso (Petitioner) appeals his conviction for trafficking cocaine, and asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to suppress drug evidence seized by police during a routine traffic stop. Following his conviction, Petitioner signed a Consent Order Granting Belated Direct Appeal (Consent Order) and waived his right to raise any other post-conviction relief (PCR) allegations. Petitioner requests this Court remand his case to determine whether that waiver was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. We affirm the circuit court’s order denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress, and remand the case for a determination as to whether Petitioner’s waiver was entered into knowingly and voluntarily.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 3, 2005, the Beaufort County Sherriff’s Office (BCSO) conducted a drug investigation focusing on Petitioner. Police believed that Petitioner may have been involved in the sale and distribution of cocaine in the Hilton Head/Bluffton area of Beaufort County. A sheriff’s deputy received information that Petitioner might be operating a vehicle in the area with expired license plates and possibly no driver’s license. The deputy conducted a traffic stop of Petitioner after confirming that his license plates were indeed expired and suspended. A “back-up officer,” arrived on scene shortly thereafter. Police placed Petitioner under arrest for operating the vehicle without a driver’s license and removed him from the vehicle. Police then conducted a “K-9” search of the vehicle. The narcotics-detection dog used in the search alerted on drug residue on the vehicle, and police conducted a search of the cargo compartment. Police seized powdered cocaine from the vehicle, and charged Petitioner with knowingly and intentionally possessing a quantity of powder cocaine with a weight in excess of one hundred grams.
The Beaufort County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner for trafficking cocaine in excess of one hundred grams, and Petitioner proceeded to trial. The jury found Petitioner guilty as indicted. The circuit court sentenced Petitioner to twenty-five years imprisonment. Petitioner did not appeal his conviction or sentence, but subsequently filed a PCR application.
Petitioner claimed in his PCR application that his trial attorney failed to file a timely notice of appeal even after assuring Petitioner that he “had multiple grounds for appeal,” and that he “would almost certainly be successful in overturning the convictions at the appellate level.” According to the Consent Order, Petitioner’s trial counsel admitted that he failed to file an appeal even though Petitioner requested one be filed. Thus, the State consented to granting Petitioner a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974)[1]. In the same Consent Order, Petitioner “waived his right to raise any other PCR allegations.”
In a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court, Petitioner asserted that the PCR judge properly found that he did not waive his right to a direct appeal, and requested this Court remand his case to determine whether his waiver of any other PCR allegations was entered into knowingly or voluntarily. This Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari as to whether Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to direct appeal, dispensed with further briefing on that question, and elected to proceed with further review of the direct appeal issue—the validity of the stop and search. Additionally, this Court granted review of whether Petitioner’s waiver of any other PCR allegations was entered into knowingly and voluntarily.
ISSUES PRESENTED
| Whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence obtained as a result of Petitioner’s traffic stop. |
| Whether Petitioner’s waiver of PCR allegations, other than the belated direct appeal issue, was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds, this Court applies a deferential standard of review and will reverse only if there is clear error. State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 520, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010) (citation omitted). However, this Court is not barred from conducting its own review of the record to determine whether the trial judge’s decision is supported by the evidence. Id.
On certiorari in a PCR action, the Court applies the “any evidence” standard. Accordingly, this Court will affirm if any evidence of probative value in the record exists to support the findings of the PCR court. Terry v. State, 394 S.C. 62, 66, 714 S.E.2d 326, 328 (2011) (citation omitted).
LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Whether the circuit court erred in admitting evidence obtained as a result of Petitioner’s traffic stop.
Petitioner argues that the facts presented by police to the circuit court did not rise to the level of “reasonable suspicion,” and that he was “unreasonably seized.” Thus, according to Petitioner, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and this Court should reverse his conviction. We agree with Petitioner that the search incident to arrest in this case violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, for reasons explained below, the exclusion remedy is unavailable to Petitioner, and thus his conviction will stand.
In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), the United States Supreme Court initially explained the constitutionally permissible scope of a search incident to arrest. In that case, police ordered the driver of a speeding vehicle to pull over to the side of the road and stop. Id. at 455. The policeman asked to see the driver’s license and automobile registration and simultaneously smelled burnt marijuana. Id. at 455–56. The officer directed the occupants out of the car and conducted a pat down of the four men. Id. at 456. The officer then conducted a search of the passenger compartment of the car, including a black leather jacket belonging to Belton. Id. He unzipped one of the pockets of the jacket and discovered cocaine. Id.
Belton argued that the cocaine had been seized in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Belton, 453 U.S. at 456–57. The Court stressed the need to provide a “workable rule,” and held that when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, “he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.” Id. at 459–60. The Court reasoned that the police should also be allowed to examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, “for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach.” Id. at 460–61 (citations omitted).
In the instant case, the police stopped Petitioner as part of an ongoing drug investigation, but primarily because the license tags on his automobile were expired. The police officer asked Petitioner for his driver’s license, and verified that Petitioner did not possess a valid driver’s license. Thus, he arrested Petitioner, and police searched Petitioner’s vehicle incident to that arrest.
Petitioner challenged the search at trial. The circuit court judge initially expressed concern at the vehicle search following a mere traffic stop, but denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress:
It concerns me that the law enforcement in this case would risk this investigation by making a search under these circumstances without obtaining a search warrant. It would have been a very easy thing to do. There was just no reason that it needed to be done the way that they did it . . . . But after looking especially at the case of New York v. Belton, 433 U.S. 454, is [sic] the only thing that tips the scales in the State’s favor in this case; and that is that a search may be made incident to an arrest of the passenger compartment of the vehicle, including containers located in the passenger compartment where the search incident to arrest even if the detainee has been arrested and removed from the vehicle.
Petitioner’s trial took place in 2007, two years prior to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009). In Gant, the United States Supreme Court limited the expansive searches allowed by Belton. The Court noted that Beltonhad been widely understood to “allow a vehicle search incident to arrest of a recent occupant even if there is no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search.” Id. at 1718. The Court found this reading incompatible with its previous decisions regarding the basic scope of searches incident to lawful custodial arrests. Id. at 1719 (citation omitted). Therefore the Court held that police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. Id. (citing Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 624–25 (2004)).
Newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases, “pending on direct review or not yet final, with no exception for cases in which a new rule constitutes a ‘clear break’ with the past.” Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987). Petitioner’s conviction has not yet become final on direct review. Thus, Gant applies retroactively to this case, and Petitioner may invoke its rule of substantive Fourth Amendment law as a basis for seeking relief. However, our analysis of the instant case is further controlled by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011).
In Davis, the defendant was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm based on discovery of a revolver in a stopped automobile in which he was the only passenger. Id. at 2425–26. During the pendency of Davis’s appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided Gant. The Eleventh Circuit applied Gant‘s new rule and held that the vehicle search incident to arrest violated Davis’s Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 2426 (citation omitted). However, the court concluded that penalizing the arresting officer for following binding appellate court precedent would do nothing to deter Fourth Amendment violations. Id. (citingUnited States v. Davis, 598 F.3d 1259, 1265–66 (2010)).
The United States Supreme Court agreed, and reasoned that the acknowledged absence of police culpability doomed Davis’s claim. Id. at 2428. “Police practices trigger the harsh sanction of exclusion only when they are deliberate enough to yield ‘meaningful deterrence’ and culpable enough to be ‘worth the price paid by the justice system.'” Id. (citing Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144 (2009)). Excluding evidence in cases where the “constable” has scrupulously adhered to governing law deters no police conduct and imposes substantial social costs. Davis, 131 S.Ct. at 2434. Thus, the Court held that when the police conduct a search in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent, the exclusionary rule does not apply. Id.
In the instant case, the search incident to arrest violated Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to Gant. However, excluding the evidence against Petitioner would not deter police misconduct because the police in this instance conducted a search incident to arrest pursuant to binding appellate precedent. See id. at 2426–28. Moreover, exclusion of the evidence in this case would result in severe social costs, including the articulation of an inexplicable and undecipherable message to law enforcement regarding how to conduct a legal search. The protection of the Fourth Amendment can only be realized if the police are acting under a set of rules which make it possible to reach a correct determination beforehand as to whether an invasion of privacy is justified in the interest of law enforcement. Wayne R. LaFave, “Case-By-Case Adjudication” Versus “Standardized Procedures”: The Robinson Dilemma, 1974 Sup. Ct. Rev. 127, 142 (1974).
This Court will only reverse the circuit court’s decision on a motion to suppress when there is clear error. State v. Tindall, 388 S.C. 518, 520, 698 S.E.2d 203, 205 (2010). The circuit court in this case applied the established law to a search executed pursuant to binding precedent. Thus, Davis v. United States, and our own standard of review, commands that the circuit court’s decision be affirmed.[2]
II. Whether the Petitioner’s waiver of PCR allegations, other than the belated direct appeal issue, was entered into knowingly and voluntarily.
Petitioner signed a consent order granting belated direct appeal and waived his right to raise any other PCR allegations. He now asks this court to remand his case for a determination as to whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to raise additional PCR claims.
In order to determine whether a waiver is effective, the court examines the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. Spoone v. State, 379 S.C. 138, 143, 665 S.E.2d 605, 607 (2008) (citing United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146 (4th Cir. 1995)). Numerous jurisdictions have upheld waivers of post-conviction relief, provided they were knowing and voluntary. Id. at 143, 665 S.E.2d at 607. A defendant’s knowing and voluntary waiver of statutory or constitutional rights must be established by a complete record, and may be accomplished by a colloquy between the court and defendant, between the court and defendant’s counsel, or both. Brannon v. State, 345 S.C. 437, 439, 548 S.E.2d 866, 867 (2001).
In Spoone v. State, 379 S.C. 138, 665 S.E.2d 605 (2008), this Court addressed whether a PCR court erred in enforcing a written plea agreement wherein the petitioner waived his right to direct appeal, PCR, and habeas corpus relief. The petitioner argued that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent because there was no discussion at the plea proceeding about the extent of his understanding of the waiver. Id. at 141, 665 S.E.2d at 607.
The Court took into account that although petitioner had only a ninth grade education, the text of the written plea agreement was straightforward. Id. at 143–44, 665 S.E.2d at 608. In addition, the plea colloquy showed that the PCR court specifically asked petitioner about the waiver both in the language of the plea agreement, and in “plain language.” Id. Two attorneys accompanied petitioner to the plea hearing and both signed the written plea agreement along with petitioner. Id. Thus, this Court held that the PCR court correctly enforced the waiver and dismissed petitioner’s PCR application. Id.
In this case, according to the Consent Order, Petitioner appeared before the PCR court on August 26, 2008. The Consent Order states that Petitioner waived his right to raise any other PCR allegations, but was “granted a belated direct appeal pursuant to White v. State.” The record before this Court of the colloquy between the parties consists of the following:
The court: What’s the—what we got this morning?
Mr. Friedman: Your Honor, the first one is Osiel Gomez Narcisco [sic].
The court: All right.
Mr. Friedman: May we approach on this one?
The court: Yeah
(Bench conference)
Mr. Friedman: Thank you, Your Honor.
The court: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
The Consent Order signed by Petitioner is straightforward. However, Petitioner used an English-speaking interpreter throughout his original trial, and apparently has, at best, a limited command of the English language. The colloquy provided to this Court does not show that the PCR court specifically asked Petitioner about the waiver, either in the language of the Consent Order, or in “plain language.”
The State argues that Petitioner’s case is distinguishable from Spoone because in that case the issue was “whether the right to appellate review and post-conviction review may be waived by a written plea agreement . . . ,” and that “[Petitioner] proceeded to trial and was convicted.” This is a distinction without a difference. The key issue in Spoone and in Petitioner’s case is the circumstances surrounding the waiver of the right to appeal PCR allegations. Aside from the consent agreement, the record in this case does not support the conclusion that Petitioner entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Additionally, the colloquy between the court and the defendant in this case does not clearly establish that Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to raise any other PCR allegations. This Court will affirm the PCR court’s findings if any evidence of probative value exists in the record. Terry v. State, 394 S.C. 62, 66, 714 S.E.2d 326, 328 (2011). However, finding that no such evidence exists in the instant case, we must remand for a determination as to whether Petitioner’s waiver was entered into knowingly and voluntarily.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the circuit court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to suppress. However, the record does not adequately demonstrate whether Petitioner’s waiver was in accordance with this Court’s waiver jurisprudence. Thus, we remand the case for a determination on that issue.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED IN PART.
PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
[1] In White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 113, 208 S.E.2d 35, 36 (1974), the defendant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence, but subsequently filed a petition for PCR and a circuit court denied that relief in a full evidentiary hearing. Id. The defendant argued on appeal that the PCR judge should have ordered a new trial because the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to appeal from his conviction and sentence. Id. at 117, 208 S.E.2d at 39. The defendant’s trial counsel testified at the PCR hearing that he did not advise the defendant of his right to appeal because he was certain the defendant knew of his rights due to his prior criminal record. Id. The PCR judge found that the defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appeal, and directed defendant’s new counsel to secure a belated appeal to this Court from his conviction and sentence. Id. at 118, 208 S.E.2d at 39. This Court found that with regard to this belated appeal, no notice of appeal had been filed, and thus the Court had no jurisdiction over such an appeal. Id. at 119, 208 S.E.2d at 39. However, the Court reviewed the record in connection with the properly presented PCR appeal and ruled that “there was no reversible error in the trial and that there was not an arguably meritorious ground of appeal, even if notice of intention to appeal had been timely served . . . .” White, 263 S.C. at 119, 208 S.E.2d at 40.
[2] Respondent argues that due to Gant, the “search-incident-to-arrest logic is no longer appropriate grounds for denying the suppression motion,” and urged this Court to find the search was justified under the automobile exception. However, the decision in Davis being dispositive, this Court need not reach the automobile exception, or any other grounds, for upholding the search. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1998) (holding that appellate courts need not discuss remaining issues when determination of a prior issue is dispositive).
Mar 11, 2012 | Criminal Defense, Uncategorized
This SC Supreme Court decision reaffirms the critical importance of issuing warrants. Without the signature of the issuing judge, the warrant is just a “piece of unfinished paper.” Any evidence obtained pursuant to such a “warrant” is, therefore, invalid and must be suppressed. If ever confronted with a law enforcement officer seeking to search your home or business, ask to see the warrant. If not signed, you can object to allowing the police to go forward. If they insist on proceeding, call an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately and decline to answer any questions until you get advice. Better make sure your attorney knows and understands this complex area of criminal law and is willing to fight to make sure you get a fair and just trial. There is too much at stake to risk an inexperienced lawyer.
At Reeves, Aiken & Hightower LLP, our attorneys have over 70 years of combined trial experience in both civil and criminal courts. We are available by mobile phone in the evenings, on weekends, and even holidays. Our lawyers are licensed in both South Carolina and North Carolina and are effective criminal trial attorneys. We are not afraid to go to Court and often do. Tyler Burns is a former 16th Circuit (York County) prosecutor, and Art Aiken is a accomplished criminal attorney who has tried virtually every type of criminal case in both state and federal courts. And, Bea Hightower is a former Richland County public defender in Columbia. We welcome an opportunity to sit down and personally review your case. Compare our attorneys’ credentials and experience to any other law firm. Then call us at 803-548-4444 for a private consultation. Or visit our firm’s website at www.rjrlaw.com
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
The State, Petitioner/Respondent,
v.
Kevin Covert, Respondent/Petitioner.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal from Greenville County
James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 26632
Heard January 21, 2009 – Filed April 13, 2009
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia, and Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Petitioner/Respondent.
Katherine Carruth Link, of West Columbia, for Respondent/Petitioner.
JUSTICE PLEICONES: We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals decision in State v. Covert, 368 S.C. 188, 628 S.E.2d 482 (Ct. App. 2006)[1] and now affirm, as modified, that court’s decision to grant respondent a new trial. In a split decision, Judges Short and Anderson found reversible error in the jury’s possession of a statute during deliberations; in addition, Judge Short found that evidence should have been suppressed, and Judge Anderson found reversible error in the verdict form.
We hold, as did Judge Short, that an unsigned search warrant is invalid, and agree with Judge Anderson that when a verdict form is submitted to a jury in a criminal case, it must affirmatively offer a “not guilty” option. Finally, while we agree with Judges Short and Anderson that it was error to permit this jury to have a written version of the trafficking statute with it during deliberations, we would not find sufficient prejudice from that error alone to warrant reversal.
ISSUES
| Did Judge Short err in holding that an unsigned search warrant is invalid? |
| Did Judge Anderson err in finding the verdict form here was so prejudicial as to require reversal? |
| Did permitting the jury to have a written version of the trafficking statute with it during deliberations require reversal? |
ANALYSIS
1. Warrant
The search warrant in this case is signed by the magistrate, and dated September 28, 2002; the accompanying two-page affidavit is signed by her on each page, and both these signatures are dated September 26, 2002. The return is signed and dated September 27, 2002. It is undisputed that the warrant was obtained and served on September 26, 2002.
At trial, respondent contended that the warrant was unsigned when it was served, that it was therefore invalid, and that accordingly the evidence seized pursuant to the search should be suppressed. Respondent argued that, without the magistrate’s signature, the warrant was not issued within the meaning of South Carolina’s search warrant statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (1985). The trial judge refused to suppress the evidence even though he found the warrant had not been signed before it was served, holding that the search warrant statute was subject to a “good faith” exception, and that such an exception was applicable here.
On appeal, Judge Short held that the search warrant was not issued within the meaning of the statute because it lacked a timely signature. Judge Short also held there was a good faith exception to the statutory warrant procedures, but that it was inapplicable here. We agree that the absence of the magistrate’s signature at the time the warrant was served invalidates it, but do not reach the issue whether there exists a “good faith” exception to the statutory warrant requirements since we find, as explained below, that no warrant was ever issued.
We have held, in the context of an arrest warrant, that such a warrant is not lawful where the issuing judicial officer failed to sign the warrant on the space provided on the warrant form. Davis v. Sanders, 40 S.C. 507, 19 S.E 138 (1894). Although the State would characterize such an omission as merely procedural or ministerial, we disagree. The Davis Court gave a persuasive explanation of the signature requirement, albeit in the context of an arrest warrant:
[W]hen it is remembered that a sheriff or other officer, who undertakes to arrest a citizen under a warrant, is bound to show his warrant, if demanded, to the person proposed to be arrested, and if he refuses to do so the arrest may be lawfully resisted [internal citation omitted], we think it would be very dangerous to the peace of society for the court to hold that a paper, which shows on its face that it is an unfinished paper…would be a sufficient justification for an arrest.
The same policy considerations apply to a search warrant, [2] and thus the lack of the issuing officer’s signature is not excusable as merely procedural or ministerial, but rather negates the existence of a warrant, creating instead “an unfinished paper.” As the DavisCourt went on to hold, the fact that the issuing officer intended to sign the warrant and had in fact signed the back was not sufficient to validate it, nor was the arrest legal despite the fact the officers who executed the arrest pursuant to the “warrant” were “entirely innocent of any intentional wrong.”
The Davis requirement that a warrant must be signed by the issuing judicial officer in order to be complete is a common law decision predicated on public policy considerations. The signature is the assurance that a judicial officer has found that law enforcement has made the requisite probable cause showing, and serves as notice to the citizen upon whom the warrant is served that it is a validly issued warrant. Without the signature, it is merely an “unfinished paper.” Davis, supra; see also DuBose v. DuBose, 90 S.C. 87, 72 S.E. 645 (1911) (“But it has been decided [in Davis] that, when an officer is performing the ministerial duty of issuing a paper on compliance with certain conditions prescribed by law, his signature at the foot of the paper he intended to sign is necessary to its validity”).
We consider also whether the unsigned warrant can be upheld in the face of § 17-13-140, the general search warrant statute. The statute contains requirements different from those mandated by the Fourth Amendment, and is in some ways “more strict” than the federal constitution. State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 352 S.E.2d 471 (1987). While we have recognized a “good faith” exception to the statute’s requirements where the officers make a good faith attempt to comply with the statute’s affidavit procedures,McKnight, supra, explaining State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 216 S.E.2d 501 (1975), we have left open the question whether a good faith exception would be applied where “the officers reasonably believe the warrant is valid when the search is made, but is subsequently determined to be invalid.” McKnight, supra. Here, we do not reach the question whether there exists a good faith exception to the statute where a defective warrant is issued, since under South Carolina law an unsigned warrant is not a warrant, and is not capable of being issued within the meaning of § 17-13-140. See also Davis, supra (officers good faith irrelevant where warrant is not signed).
The circuit court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the unsigned “warrant.” Respondent is therefore entitled to a new trial.
2. Verdict Form
In this case, the jury was given a verdict form which tracked the provisions of the trafficking statute, but did not specifically allow the jury to return a “not guilty” verdict. We agree with Judge Anderson that this was error and hold that henceforth, any verdict form given to a jury for use in a criminal case must specifically include as an option “not guilty.” We therefore overrule State v. Myers, 344 S.C. 532, 544 S.E.2d 851 (Ct. App. 2001) to the extent it holds that a jury charge can negate prejudice from the lack of a “not guilty” choice on a verdict form.
3. Trafficking Statute
Judge Short and Judge Anderson found reversible error in the trial court’s submission to the jury of the trafficking statute, while Judge Goolsby found no error. Since this case was tried and the appeal decided by the Court of Appeals, we have held that it is within the trial judge’s discretion to “submit its instructions on the law to the jury in writing.” State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 644 S.E.2d 693 (2007). We caution the bench again, as we did in Turner, that this practice should be used sparingly, and only where it will aid the jury and where it will not prejudice the defendant. It is never appropriate, however, to give only part of the charge to the jury as was done in this case.
CONCLUSION
The Court of Appeals decision reversing respondent’s convictions and sentences is
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
WALLER, BEATTY, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur. TOAL, C.J., concurring in a separate opinion.
Chief Justice Toal: Although I concur in the decision to affirm the court of appeals’ decision reversing Covert’s conviction, I write separately because I would reach this decision on different grounds.
As a primary matter, I do not find that Davis v. Sanders, 40 S.C. 507, 19 S.E. 138 (1894) controls this case. Davis was decided over one hundred years ago, prior to the passage of § 17-13-140. Moreover, the Davis Court, in the absence of any statutory authority, relied on prior case law in declaring that a warrant must be signed.[3] See State v. Vaughn, 16 S.C.L. (Harp.) 313 (1824) (holding that a warrant that was signed but not sealed was nevertheless a valid warrant). Moreover, I find it significant that the parties inDavis conceded that a warrant had to be signed, thereby leaving only the issue of whether the magistrate’s notation on the warrant constituted a signature for the Court’s determination. Accordingly, I believe that Davis is somewhat irrelevant to the facts of this case and that we must solely look to § 17-13-140 to determine the validity of this warrant.
Section 17-13-140 does not specifically require the magistrate to sign the warrant, but rather, merely requires that a magistrate “issue” the warrant. Nonetheless, a magistrate’s signature indicates that she has made the necessary probable cause finding required before issuing the warrant. Even assuming that an unsigned warrant is defective, I do not believe that this alone necessarily renders the warrant void ab initio.
This Court has held that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies in cases where officers make a good faith attempt to comply with the statute’s affidavit requirements. See State v. McKnight, 291 S.C. 110, 112-13, 352 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1987) (refusing to apply the good faith exception where the officers failed to attempt to comply in good faith to the affidavit requirements);State v. Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 559, 216 S.E.2d 501, 510 (1975) (allowing evidence to be admitted pursuant to the good faith exception where officers attempted in good faith to comply with the statutory requirements). In my view, the policy reasons for applying the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in other cases are applicable in this case. See State v. Harvin, 345 S.C. 190, 194, 547 S.E.2d 497, 500 (2001) (recognizing that the main purpose of the exclusionary rule is the deterrence of police misconduct). Covert does not allege that the officers knew the warrant was unsigned or deliberately obtained the warrant without a signature, and the record contains no evidence that he was prejudiced by the statutory violation. Therefore, I would hold that the officers attempted in good faith to comply with § 17-13-140’s requirements and the exclusionary rule should not render the evidence inadmissible.
In my view, the fatal flaw in the State’s case is its failure to present any evidence at trial that the magistrate made a probable cause finding. As the majority observes, the signature on the warrant indicates that a judicial officer found that law enforcement made the requisite probable cause showing, a finding clearly required before a warrant may be issued. The State bore the burden of proving the validity of the warrant and, in my view, while the absence of a magistrate’s signature may be a factor in determining whether the warrant was issued upon probable cause, it is not dispositive of the determination. However, by failing to call the magistrate to testify that she issued the warrant upon finding probable cause, the State failed to present any evidence to show the warrant was valid and therefore did not carry its burden. See Sachs, 264 S.C. at 555, 216 S.E.2d at 508 (recognizing that “all that is necessary to justify the issuance of a warrant is probable cause”); see also U.S. Const. amend. IV and S.C. Const. art. I (mandating that a warrant must be supported by probable cause).
For these reasons, I would hold that the good faith exception is applicable under these circumstances, but that the State failed to carry its burden of proving the magistrate issued the warrant upon finding probable cause. Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm as modified the court of appeals’ opinion.
[1] The facts are fully reported in that opinion, and the verdict form is reproduced in Judge Anderson’s concurring opinion.
[2] See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-150 (2003) (copy of warrant and affidavit shall be furnished to person served)
[3] Specifically, the Davis Court found that the lower court properly charged the jury that “a warrant need not be under seal, yet it must be in writing, and signed by the officer issuing.” Id. at 509, 19 S.E. at 139.
