Bridwell v. State, No. 23547

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGREGORY
Citation306 S.C. 518,413 S.E.2d 30
PartiesTony Ray BRIDWELL, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date06 January 1992
Docket NumberNo. 23547

Page 30

413 S.E.2d 30
306 S.C. 518
Tony Ray BRIDWELL, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 23547.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted Dec. 6, 1991.
Decided Jan. 6, 1992.

Page 31

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

Vance L. Cowden, of the University of South Carolina School of Law, Columbia, for amicus curiae Nat. Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

GREGORY, Chief Justice:

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill and one count of possession of explosive material without a license. His direct appeal was [306 S.C. 519] dismissed after review pursuant toDavis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). We granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) and now reverse.

Petitioner contends the waiver of his right to counsel at trial was not knowing and voluntary under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), because he was not warned of the dangers inherent in self-representation.

To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial judge addressing the disadvantages of proceeding pro se, this Court will look to the record to determine whether petitioner had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source. Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 392 S.E.2d 462 (1990); Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 391 S.E.2d 575 (1990).

In this case, the record indicates the trial judge gave petitioner no warning of the dangers of self-representation. Further, there is no evidence petitioner was aware of the hazards of proceeding pro se. Accordingly, we find the PCR judge erred in finding petitioner's waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary. See High v. State, 300 S.C. 88, 386 S.E.2d 463 (1989) (this Court will not uphold PCR judge's finding if there is no evidence to support it). The denial of PCR is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

HARWELL, CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. McLauren, No. 3483.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 29 Abril 2002
    ...be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. Bridwell v. 349 S.C. 494 State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 392 S.E.2d 462 (1990); see also Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 57......
  • State v. Boykin, No. 2585
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 11 Septiembre 1996
    ...Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Bridwell v. State, 306 Page 691 S.C. 518, 519, 413 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1992); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42, 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 A defendant may also waive his right to counsel through his conduct. Goldberg, 6......
  • Gardner v. State, No. 25528.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2002
    ...the case should be remanded for a new trial. See Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399, 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001); Wroten; Prince; Bridwell v. State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992). We find Petitioner was not adequately apprised of the dangers of self-representation. The plea judge never even acknow......
  • Watts v. State, No. 25378.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 26 Noviembre 2001
    ...not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel and the case should be remanded for a new trial. See Wroten; Prince; Bridwell v. State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992). Our precedent requires the trial judge to conduct "a hearing to determine whether a request to proceed pro se was ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. McLauren, No. 3483.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 29 Abril 2002
    ...be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. Bridwell v. 349 S.C. 494 State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 392 S.E.2d 462 (1990); see also Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 57......
  • State v. Boykin, No. 2585
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 11 Septiembre 1996
    ...Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); Bridwell v. State, 306 Page 691 S.C. 518, 519, 413 S.E.2d 30, 31 (1992); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42, 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 A defendant may also waive his right to counsel through his conduct. Goldberg, 6......
  • Gardner v. State, No. 25528.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 Septiembre 2002
    ...the case should be remanded for a new trial. See Watts v. State, 347 S.C. 399, 556 S.E.2d 368 (2001); Wroten; Prince; Bridwell v. State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992). We find Petitioner was not adequately apprised of the dangers of self-representation. The plea judge never even acknow......
  • Watts v. State, No. 25378.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 26 Noviembre 2001
    ...not make a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel and the case should be remanded for a new trial. See Wroten; Prince; Bridwell v. State, 306 S.C. 518, 413 S.E.2d 30 (1992). Our precedent requires the trial judge to conduct "a hearing to determine whether a request to proceed pro se was ac......
  • 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