Aice v. State, No. 23476

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL; GREGORY
Citation305 S.C. 448,409 S.E.2d 392
PartiesMichael AICE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. . Heard
Decision Date05 October 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23476

Page 392

409 S.E.2d 392
305 S.C. 448
Michael AICE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 23476.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 5, 1990.
Decided Sept. 9, 1991.

Page 393

Tara Dawn Shurling, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen., T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Donald J. Zelenka and Asst. Atty. Gen., Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

The sole issue we address in this appeal is whether a convict may maintain a successive application for post-conviction relief (PCR) on the ground that his first complete PCR application was insufficient due to ineffective PCR counsel. We hold that a successive application is not allowed on this basis, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the lower court.

[305 S.C. 449] FACTS

Michael Aice was convicted of two murders in a drive-by shooting incident in Columbia occurring at night on July 5, 1980. He received two consecutive life sentences for these crimes. Aice's direct appeal was affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23 by this Court in 1982. Aice next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, which was denied.

Aice filed his first application for PCR in 1983, alleging several grounds for relief. Following a hearing, Aice's application was denied in 1985. Aice petitioned this Court for certiorari to review the decision of the PCR judge. In his petition to this Court, Aice argued three additional grounds for post-conviction relief. The State asserted that the additional grounds raised by Aice were procedurally barred, since they had not been raised before the lower PCR court. The State also contended that this Court should decline to overturn the PCR court on those grounds concededly properly raised by Aice. We denied Aice's petition for certiorari in 1986.

Aice next attempted to obtain habeas corpus relief in federal court, but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, Aice filed a second, and therefore successive, application for PCR, raising the same three additional issues not raised in his first PCR application before the first PCR lower court. These grounds were raised under the rubric of the alleged ineffectiveness of the first PCR trial counsel in failing to raise these issues. The second PCR court summarily dismissed the application on procedural grounds, as impermissibly successive. Aice petitioned this Court for certiorari to review this latest ruling, and we agreed to review the decision.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Aice argues that he should be allowed to file a second application for PCR because: (1) he has three arguments of great merit rendering his conviction fundamentally unfair; and (2) his counsel in his first PCR application was ineffective in failing to make those arguments. As an initial matter, we disagree that any of the three grounds for relief argued by Aice have merit. However, we need not have even reviewed Aice's asserted grounds since we agree with the lower court that Aice's successive PCR application should be summarily dismissed on procedural grounds.

[305 S.C. 450] South Carolina Code Ann. § 17-27-90 provides:

All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this chapter must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to

Page 394

secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental or amended application.

(emphasis added). This statute forbids a successive PCR application unless an applicant can point to a "sufficient reason" why the new grounds for relief he asserts were not raised, or were not raised properly. We are aware that some jurisdictions have interpreted the words "sufficient reason" in a way favorable to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 practice notes
  • Tucker v. Moore, No. Civ.A. 0:98-681-8BD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 15, 1999
    ...401 U.S. 560, 562 n. 3, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); Wicker v. State, 310 S.C. 8, 425 S.E.2d 25 (1992); Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392, 393 (S.C.1991) [post-conviction relief].6 Further, as there is no current state remedy for Petitioner to pursue these claims, they ar......
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...for relief in his first application because successive applications usually are barred. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-90 (1985); Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392 The applicant may not bring a PCR action while a direct appeal is pending. Rule 71.1(b), SCRCP. In a direct appeal, the focus ......
  • Mahdi v. Stirling, C/A No. 8:16-3911-TMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 24, 2018
    ...consider claims raised in a second appeal that could have been raised at an earlier time. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-90; Aice v. State, 409 S.E.2d 392, 394 (S.C. 1991). Further, if a prisoner has failed to file a direct appeal or a PCR application and the deadlines for filing have passed, h......
  • Rivera v. Lewis, C/A No. 5:16-00837-MGL-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 9, 2016
    ...consider claims raised in a second appeal that could have been raised at an earlier time. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-90; Aice v. State, 409 S.E.2d 392, 394 (S.C. 1991). Further, if a prisoner has failed to file a direct appeal or a PCR and the deadlines for filing have passed, he is barred ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • Tucker v. Moore, No. Civ.A. 0:98-681-8BD.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • March 15, 1999
    ...401 U.S. 560, 562 n. 3, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); Wicker v. State, 310 S.C. 8, 425 S.E.2d 25 (1992); Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392, 393 (S.C.1991) [post-conviction relief].6 Further, as there is no current state remedy for Petitioner to pursue these claims, they ar......
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...for relief in his first application because successive applications usually are barred. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-90 (1985); Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392 The applicant may not bring a PCR action while a direct appeal is pending. Rule 71.1(b), SCRCP. In a direct appeal, the focus ......
  • Mahdi v. Stirling, C/A No. 8:16-3911-TMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 24, 2018
    ...consider claims raised in a second appeal that could have been raised at an earlier time. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-90; Aice v. State, 409 S.E.2d 392, 394 (S.C. 1991). Further, if a prisoner has failed to file a direct appeal or a PCR application and the deadlines for filing have passed, h......
  • Rivera v. Lewis, C/A No. 5:16-00837-MGL-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 9, 2016
    ...consider claims raised in a second appeal that could have been raised at an earlier time. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-27-90; Aice v. State, 409 S.E.2d 392, 394 (S.C. 1991). Further, if a prisoner has failed to file a direct appeal or a PCR and the deadlines for filing have passed, he is barred ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT