Gallman v. State, 23582
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 414 S.E.2d 780,307 S.C. 273 |
| Decision Date | 24 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23582,23582 |
| Parties | Glenn GALLMAN, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Page 780
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decided Feb. 24, 1992.
Page 781
[307 S.C. 274] Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Asst. Atty. Gen. Lisa G. Jefferson, Columbia, for respondent.
FINNEY, Justice:
This Court granted certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) to Petitioner Glenn Gallman. After due consideration of the record, briefs of the parties and the applicable law, we reverse and remand.
[307 S.C. 275] Petitioner was tried January 18, 1990, in the Aiken County Court of General Sessions before a judge and jury for the offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. No direct appeal was taken.
On July 3, 1990, petitioner filed an application for PCR on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel asserting, inter alia, that his trial counsel failed to object to an allegedly prejudicial statement the trial court made to the jury. A PCR hearing was held on September 28, 1990, at which testimony was presented by the petitioner, petitioner's trial counsel, Public Defender Robert Bloedorn, and Wallace Gallman, petitioner's father. In its order dated October 23, 1990, the PCR court denied relief and dismissed petitioner's application based upon its finding that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proof. The PCR judge found that trial counsel's decision not to object to the trial court's alleged prejudicial remarks was sound trial strategy, and that the petitioner had not established any constitutional violations or deprivations before or during his trial. These proceedings followed.
The sole issue before this Court is whether petitioner is entitled to PCR on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner contends his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to interpose an objection when the trial court made the following statement, prior to arguments of counsel or the charge on the law, in his instructions to the jury before they recessed for lunch.
You're not in a posture yet to decide the case because you haven't heard the closing argument and you haven't heard the charge on the law. Please don't let anybody talk to you about it. Obviously, you can talk about it among yourselves but you are not to render a decision ... (Emphasis added.)
Petitioner argues that the trial judge's comments explicitly invited the jury to prematurely discuss the case among themselves, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and that petitioner was prejudiced thereby. We agree.
The two-prong test which a defendant must meet in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
Page 782
are 1) that counsel's representation fell below [307 S.C. 276] an objective standard of reasonableness; and 2) that, but for counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stone v. State, Appellate Case No. 2013-001968
...counsel's failure to object because he did not want to confuse or upset the jury was not a valid strategic decision); Gallman v. State , 307 S.C. 273, 276-77, 414 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1992) (holding trial counsel's failure to object because he did not want to "give the jury the idea that someth......
-
State v. Kelly, 24809.
...We view such misconduct as very serious; especially where, as here, the jury has been warned against it. See, e.g., Gallman v. State, 307 S.C. 273, 414 S.E.2d 780...
-
Stone v. State, Appellate Case No. 2013-001968
...counsel's failure to object because he did not want to confuse or upset the jury was not a valid strategic decision); Gallman v. State, 307 S.C. 273, 276-77, 414 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1992) (holding trial counsel's failure to object because he did not want to "give the jury the idea that somethi......
-
State v. Aldret, 24876.
...engage in premature deliberations constitute reversible error. See State v. Thomas, 307 S.C. 278, 414 S.E.2d 783 (1992); Gallman v. State, 307 S.C. 273, 414 S.E.2d 780 (1992) State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. 430, 346 S.E.2d 707 (1986); State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v.......