Bray v. State, 26045.

Decision Date26 September 2005
Docket NumberNo. 26045.,26045.
Citation620 S.E.2d 743
PartiesMartin BRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his third application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and affirm the order of the PCR judge.

The PCR judge found that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appellate review of the denial of his first PCR application because his PCR counsel failed to advise him of the right to seek appellate review. However, the judge found that petitioner's third PCR action was barred by laches.

This Court has never specifically required counsel to advise a PCR applicant of the right to appellate review of the denial of PCR. In Sutton v. State, 361 S.C. 644, 606 S.E.2d 779 (2004), we held that neither trial nor appellate counsel are required to advise a client of the right to file a PCR application or the time limits for filing. However, in Austin v. State, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E.2d 395 (1991), this Court held that an applicant has a right to an appellate counsel's assistance in seeking review of the denial of PCR. Appellate counsel is required to brief arguable issues, despite counsel's belief the appeal is frivolous, to safeguard the right to appeal. Johnson v. State, 294 S.C. 310, 364 S.E.2d 201 (1988). Further, Rule 71.1(g), SCRCP, expressly provides that, if the applicant wishes to seek appellate review, PCR counsel must file a Notice of Appeal, continue representation until relieved, and assist an indigent applicant in obtaining representation by the Office of Appellate Defense.

We now hold that counsel is required to advise an applicant of the right to appellate review of the denial of PCR. Accordingly, the PCR judge properly found that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to appellate review since counsel failed to advise him of the right. However, as discussed below, petitioner's application was properly dismissed.

Laches is "neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances affording opportunity for diligence, to do what in law should have been done. Whether a claim is barred by laches is to be determined in light of the facts of each case, taking into consideration whether the delay has worked injury, prejudice, or disadvantage to the other party." Whitehead v. State, 352 S.C. 215, 574 S.E.2d 200 (2002), citing Hallums v. Hallums, 296...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Nelson v. Stevenson, C/A No. 5:14-00719-BHH-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • October 15, 2014
    ...relief counsel must advise an applicant of the right to seek appellate review of a post-conviction relief order. State v. Bray, 366 S.C. 137, 620 S.E.2d 743 (2005). Also, pursuant to Austin v. State, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E.2d 395 (1991), an applicant has a right to an appellate counsel's ass......
  • Gaines v. Cothram, C/A No. 5:14-04652-JMC-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • February 3, 2016
    ...days from receipt of this Order to secure the appropriate appellate review. See Rule 203, SCACR. Rule 71.1(g). SCRCP: Bray v. State, 336 S.C. 137, 620 S.E.2d 743 (2005), for the obligation of Applicant's counsel to file and serve notice of appeal. The Applicant's attention is also directed ......
  • Williams v. Warden
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 10, 2016
    ...relief counsel must advise an applicant of the right to seek appellate review of a post-conviction relief order. State v. Bray, 366 S.C. 137, 620 S.E. 2d 743 (2005). Also, pursuant to Austin v. State, 305 S.C. 453, 409 S.E. 2d 395 (1991), an applicant has a right to an appellate counsel's a......
  • Mahaffey v. Stevenson
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 21, 2016
    ...days from receipt of this Order to secure the appropriate appellate review. See Rule 203, SCACR Rule 71.1(g), SCRCP; Bray v. State, 336 S.C. 137, 620 S.E.2d 743 (2005), for the obligation of Applicant's counsel to file and serve notice of appeal. The Applicant's attention is also directed t......
  • 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