Gibbs v. State

Decision Date27 April 2016
Docket NumberNo. 27630.,Appellate Case No. 2014–000447.,27630.
Citation416 S.C. 209,785 S.E.2d 455
PartiesJarvis GIBBS, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appellate Defender, John H. Strom, of Columbia, for petitioner.

Attorney General, Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney General, Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of Columbia, for respondent.

Justice BEATTY.

A jury convicted Jarvis Gibbs of kidnapping, entering a bank with the intent to steal, and using a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. The trial court sentenced Gibbs to an aggregate eighteen years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Gibbs, Op. No. 2011–UP–511, 2011 WL 11735803 (S.C.Ct.App. filed Nov. 28, 2011). Gibbs subsequently filed an application for post-conviction relief (“PCR”). After a hearing, the PCR court dismissed his application with prejudice. This Court granted Gibbs' petition for a writ of certiorari to review the PCR court's finding that trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to claims of witness intimidation. We affirm.

I. Factual/Procedural History

On July 25, 2008, at approximately 10:55 a.m., an individual robbed the First Palmetto Savings Bank in Camden wearing gloves, a white t-shirt, and a ski mask. Witnesses indicated the individual was a black male approximately six feet, four inches tall. None of the witnesses were able to state with certainty whether the man had any noticeable scars or tattoos.1

Two individuals observed the man fleeing the bank on a bicycle. At this time, one of the individuals also noticed a four-wheeler in the vicinity of the bank. Shortly thereafter, the police found a bicycle on the side of a dirt road located in the general direction in which the man fled. Next to the bicycle were tracks left by a four-wheeler. The police seized the bicycle.

That afternoon, Arthur Macklin saw the bicycle in the trunk of a passing police car. Macklin, believing it was the same bicycle he loaned Gibbs, contacted his attorney who subsequently contacted the police. Macklin informed the police that he loaned Gibbs the bicycle earlier that day. He also told police that a local resident named James Drakeford drove past his house on a four-wheeler that morning.2

At approximately 5:00 p.m. that afternoon, police picked Gibbs up for questioning.3 In his video statement to the police, Gibbs denied robbing the bank. Gibbs said that morning he woke up and took a shower at a friend's house at 10:30 or 11:00 a.m. After taking a shower, Gibbs stated he headed to the Dusty Bend area of Camden to get a haircut at “11:00, 12:30, 1:30.” At one point, Gibbs stated after his haircut, he went to Macklin's to borrow a bicycle for twenty minutes. At another, Gibbs stated he borrowed the bicycle before the haircut. Gibbs then provided two different versions about returning the bicycle. In one version, Gibbs dropped it off by Macklin's fence. In another, he gave the bicycle back in-person. In both versions, he borrowed the bicycle after 11:30 a.m. Gibbs was subsequently charged with kidnapping, entering a bank with the intent to steal, and using a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.

At trial, the State called Melissa Roberts, an employee of First Palmetto Savings Bank who was working at the time of the robbery. Roberts testified she knew Gibbs because they went to the same school together for one or two years approximately fifteen years before the robbery. She also said she saw Gibbs about five years before the robbery at her mother-in-law's store. In addition, Roberts testified that before the bank robbery she had seen Gibbs in the bank standing around, which she thought was strange because she did not believe he had a relationship with the bank.4

Roberts testified that after reviewing the video surveillance of the robbery, but before the police provided the bank with a suspect, she told the police she believed Gibbs was the individual who robbed the bank. Roberts based her belief on Gibbs' “mannerisms and the shape of his body” and the fact that he had been in the bank prior to the robbery. On cross-examination, however, Roberts conceded that, at the time she identified Gibbs from the video surveillance, she knew Gibbs had already been arrested.

Chad Moore also testified for the State. Moore, who was also being held in the Kershaw County Detention Center at the same time as Gibbs, testified that Gibbs confessed to robbing the bank. Specifically, Moore testified that Gibbs told him: (1) Gibbs rode a bicycle to the bank; (2) he robbed the bank wearing a toboggan hat, a white t-shirt, blue jeans, and black sneakers; (3) after leaving the bank, he got on a four-wheeler with “Little James”; (4) Gibbs and “Little James” ditched the four-wheeler by a pond in Dusty Bend; and (5) after ditching the four-wheeler, Gibbs went to get a haircut. According to Moore, the only thing Gibbs was worried about was someone noticing his scars and tattoos. On July 28, 2008, Moore relayed this information to the City of Camden Police Department. The next day, the police recovered the four-wheeler from a pond on Firetower Road in Dusty Bend.

Macklin was also called to testify. According to Macklin, Gibbs borrowed one of his bicycles on the morning of the bank robbery. Ten to twenty minutes later, Macklin said he noticed police cars riding in the neighborhood. Later that morning, he recognized the bicycle he loaned Gibbs in a passing police car. The State then showed Macklin a picture of the bicycle and asked Macklin whether the picture was of his bicycle. Macklin replied “That's my bike.” Shortly thereafter, Macklin's testimony concerning the bicycle wavered. The following exchange occurred:

Q. Is this your bike right here?
A. Like I told Lieutenant—Detective Boan, that looks like my bicycle. I don't recall the coil being around the seat. And I thought that my bike had rubber things where the shocks are on the front.
...
Q. Do you agree that this is the same bike as in the picture?
A. I'm quite sure that is the same bike in the picture.
Q. Okay. And your bike was the one that was in the back of the patrol car?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you identified this as your bike in the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. So this is your bike?
A. It has got to be.
Q. So this is the bike that Jarvis Gibbs borrowed from you?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Is this the bike that Jarvis Gibbs borrowed from you?
A. As I said, I know my bicycle, but I don't recall the things that—that coil on the seat.
Q. Okay.
A. And I thought my bicycle had the rubber things on the shock part.
Q. Okay. But this is your bike right here, right?
A. That appears to be my bicycle.
Q. And that bicycle is the one that Jarvis borrowed from you?
A. I assume that it is.

Once the State established that the bicycle was the same one Macklin loaned Gibbs, the State questioned Macklin about what happened to him after he talked with the police. Macklin testified “some guys jumped on [him] and knocked [him] out and they were supposed to shoot [him] and kill [him] while [he] was on the ground.” The following exchange occurred:

A. It was put in the paper what—the owner of the bicycle said what happened.
Q. Yes.
A. And that might as well say I said what happened.
Q. Yes, uh-huh.
A. And I asked that whatever I said be confidently kept.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. But they put it in the paper, and I got hurt behind that.
Q. And you got assaulted because of that?
A. Yes, sir.
...
Q. Do you know the name—do you know who did that to you?
A. I don't know my assailant.
...
Q. You didn't want to come [today], did you?
A. No, sir. I'm afraid for my life.

When the State asked about whether Macklin saw an individual riding a four-wheeler that morning, the following exchange occurred:

Q. Okay. Did you give the police a name as to who was on the 4–wheeler?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. And what name was that?
A. I told them James Drakeford.
Q. Okay. Now, you got beat up, right?
A. Yes, I did.

On cross-examination, trial counsel asked Macklin if he was sure the bicycle in the picture was the same bicycle he loaned Gibbs the day of the robbery. Macklin said he was not sure. Trial counsel then asked Macklin if “Gibbs ever threatened to hurt [him] in any way?” Macklin responded “No way at all.” On re-cross, trial counsel asked if Macklin had seen Gibbs after the robbery. Macklin said “Yes.” Trial counsel then asked if Gibbs had said anything to him. Macklin responded “not one thing.”

After the State presented its case, trial counsel called Gibbs to the stand. Gibbs testified that on the morning of the robbery, he stopped by his “home boy house” at around 8:45 a.m. Thereafter, Gibbs stated he went to see Macklin to borrow a bicycle. Ten to fifteen minutes after borrowing the bicycle, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Gibbs testified he placed the bicycle on Macklin's fence and then walked to the barber shop. Gibbs said he was in the barber shop for approximately one hour and that it was around 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. when he left. After leaving the shop, Gibbs went to rest in Boykin Park, where the police later found and arrested him.5

On cross-examination, Gibbs testified he found out about the robbery while he was still at the barber shop because people were coming in the shop talking about it. The State then asked Gibbs how he could have found out about the robbery if it happened at 10:55 a.m. and he left the barber shop at 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. The State then played portions of his video statement to impeach Gibbs' trial testimony from the substantially different statement Gibbs provided the police on the day of the robbery.

During its closing argument, the State made the following comments, which Gibbs takes issue with on appeal:

You know, [Macklin] actually tried to take the Fifth up here on a couple of questions. You know, he did not want to be here. Once we got done with him, you know, he essentially told the same thing to you that he told to [the detective] back on July 25th, 2008. And what happened because he talked to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Smalls v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 Febrero 2018
    ...deference to a PCR court's conclusions of law: Gonzales v. State , 419 S.C. 2, 10, 795 S.E.2d 835, 839 (2017) ; Gibbs v. State , 416 S.C. 209, 218, 785 S.E.2d 455, 459 (2016) ; McHam v. State , 404 S.C. 465, 473, 746 S.E.2d 41, 45 (2013) ; Hyman v. State , 397 S.C. 35, 42, 723 S.E.2d 375, 3......

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