Carter v. State, 22795
| Decision Date | 09 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22795,22795 |
| Citation | 362 S.E.2d 20,293 S.C. 528 |
| Parties | Eugene CARTER, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Asst. Atty. Gen. Frank L. Valenta, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
Certiorari was granted in this post-conviction relief case to consider whether petitioner's second post-conviction application was properly dismissed on the ground of successiveness. We reverse and remand for a hearing on the merits.
At his August 4, 1982, murder trial, petitioner (Carter), represented by retained counsel, did not testify. Carter was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.
In February 1984, Carter filed an application for post-conviction relief and was represented by the same attorney who had represented him at trial. At the hearing he claimed that his decision not to testify at trial was made unintelligently due to his suffering from amnesia. No claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was made. Post-conviction relief was denied.
On August 18, 1986, Carter filed a second application on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he claimed that his attorney had failed to adequately advise him of the right to appeal his conviction. In its return, the State moved to dismiss the application on the ground of successiveness.
When the post-conviction court entered a conditional order dismissing the second application as successive, Carter filed a reply requesting a hearing. He contended that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel could not have been raised earlier because his trial counsel was also his counsel on his first application. A final order of dismissal was entered and Carter appealed.
Generally, successive applications for post-conviction relief are viewed with disfavor and the applicant has the burden of showing that a new ground for relief could not have been raised in a previous application. Foxworth v. State, 275 S.C. 615, 274 S.E.2d 415 (1981); Land v. State, 274 S.C. 243, 262 S.E.2d 735 (1980). If the applicant meets this burden, a hearing must be afforded despite the successiveness of the application. Case v. State, 277 S.C. 474, 289 S.E.2d 413 (1982).
When an applicant is represented on post-conviction relief by his trial counsel, there is no waiver of the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Commonwealth v. Via, 455 Pa. 373, 316 A.2d 895 (1974). Absent a showing that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amin v. State
...attorney is first involved to consider the sufficiency of his predecessor's legal performance. Brooks, 369 S.E.2d 349; Carter v. State, 293 S.C. 528, 362 S.E.2d 20 (1987). A further adjunct separates cases by a consideration whether services were performed by private counsel or appointed pu......
-
Matthews v. Evatt
...a successive application where the applicant did not have PCR counsel that differed from his trial counsel. See Carter v. State, 293 S.C. 528, 362 S.E.2d 20, 20-21 (1987) (court permitted a successive application where the applicant raised the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counse......
-
Robertson v. State
...application where multiple procedural irregularities prohibited the applicant from receiving a direct appeal); Carter v. State , 293 S.C. 528, 362 S.E.2d 20 (1987) (permitting a successive application where trial counsel also served as PCR counsel); Case v. State , 277 S.C. 474, 289 S.E.2d ......
-
Bryant v. Stirling
... ... Stephen ... Corey Bryant (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner ... sentenced to death, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 ... U.S.C. § ... unknowingly withdrew his first PCR application with ... prejudice); Carter ... ...