Clark v. State, 19500
| Decision Date | 17 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19500,19500 |
| Citation | 192 S.E.2d 209,259 S.C. 378 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Harvey CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina and William D. Leeke et al., Respondents. |
C. R. Pusser, Jr., Chesterfield, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Robert M. Ariail, Columbia, for respondents.
The appellant, Harvey Clark, is serving a seventeen year sentence for the crime of manslaughter, imposed on December 8, 1970, in Chesterfield County. He was indicted for having murdered one Brenda Price with a .22 caliber pistol on July 16, 1970. At his trial, after the completion of the State's case, he, on the advice of his counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the crime of manslaughter. He was represented by Frank Cain, Esq. of the Marlboro Bar, who was retained by the appellant's father, in his behalf, in early September 1970.
Thereafter, on September 9, 1971, appellant filed an application for post-conviction relief. His present counsel was appointed by the court to represent him in this proceeding and a hearing was held on December 16, 1971, before the Honorable James A. Spruill, Resident Judge of the Fourth Circuit. His Honor thereafter issued an order dated December 29, 1971, denying appellant any relief for lack of merit in his allegations and contentions. The appeal is from such order.
Although appellant's appointed counsel has presented his contentions with zeal and ability, this Court, like the court below, is of the view that there is no merit in appellant's contentions. It appears that the appellant made certain statements to the investigating officers, both oral and written, which were incriminating and that such statements were admitted in evidence upon the trial, over the objections of appellant's counsel. His primary contention in this proceeding is that such statements were a coerced confession, in that there was, allegedly, a failure of full compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; that his plea of guilty was the product of such coerced confession and that, accordingly, such plea was not voluntarily entered.
The trial proceedings, other than the guilty plea, have not been transcribed nor does it appear that the appellant requested such for use at the hearing below. Accordingly, we do not have before us the record of the evidence heard by the trial judge in determining the voluntariness and admissibility of the incriminating statements. Upon the post-conviction hearing the appellant, as to the allegedly coerced confession, relied only on his testimony to the effect that there was not full compliance with the Miranda requirements. To the contrary, appellant's retained counsel, an attorney of nearly twenty years experience, testified that the statements made to law enforcement officers were made available to him well in advance of the trial; that he had investigated the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements, and that while he had, for the record, objected to the admission thereof, he was satisfied from his investigation and his discussion with the appellant that such had not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Warden of Broad River Corr. Inst.
...was the result of partiality, prejudice, oppression or corrupt motive, or that the sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment per se. Clark, State v. Cogdell, 273 S.C. 563, 257 S.E.2d 748 (1979). The Applicant has failed to show his sentence was a result of any of these factors. Acco......
-
Foxworth v. State
...findings of the lower court, we would affirm on this ground alone. Ross v. State, 250 S.C. 442, 158 S.E.2d 647 (1967); Clark v. State, 259 S.C. 378, 192 S.E.2d 209 (1972). The court below also concluded, however, that the claims raised and those that could have been raised in the prior fede......
-
Childers v. State, 19679
...250 S.C. 442, 158 S.E.2d 647; Dixon v. State, 253 S.C. 41, 168 S.E.2d 770; White v. State, 255 S.C. 493, 179 S.E.2d 906; Clark v. State, 259 S.C. 378, 192 S.E.2d 209; Young v. State, 259 S.C. 383, 192 S.E.2d 212; Sweet v. State, 255 S.C. 293, 178 S.E.2d 657; Smith v. State, 255 S.C. 417, 17......
-
Watson v. Leeke, 19548
...250 S.C. 442, 158 S.E.2d 647; Dixon v. State, 253 S.C. 41, 168 S.E.2d 770; White v. State, 255 S.C. 493, 179 S.E.2d 906; Clark v. State, S.C., 192 S.E.2d 209. Our consideration of the record convinces us that there is quite abundant support in the record for the factual findings made by the......