Goins v. State

• Decision Date: 29 June 2010
• Docket Number: 2010-UP-339
• Parties: Edmund Goins, Respondent, v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

Edmund Goins, Respondent, v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner.

No. 2010-UP-339

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

June 29, 2010

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted May 3, 2010

Appeal From Cherokee County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Molly R Crum, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

This post-conviction relief (PCR) matter arises out of Respondent Edmund Goins' conviction for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK) and two convictions of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), based on three indictments for ABWIK. This court granted the State's petition for certiorari to address whether the PCR court erred in granting relief. We reverse. ^[1]

The State argues there is no probative evidence to support the finding that trial counsel was ineffective based on the combination of counsel's failure to present evidence regarding Goins' mental disorder and limited contact with Goins before trial. Without deciding the ultimate reach of the cumulative error doctrine in the PCR context, we find it appropriate to resolve this case on the lack of prejudice. See Porter v. McCollum, 130 S.Ct. 447 455-56 (2009) ("We do not require a defendant to show that counsel's deficient conduct more likely than not altered the outcome of [the trial], but rather that he establish a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in that outcome.") (internal quotations omitted); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984) ("[A] court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.... If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, ... that course should be followed."); Lorenzen v. State, 376 S.C. 521, 535, 657 S.E.2d 771, 779 (2008) (holding that where none of the errors alleged are meritorious, the PCR court erred in finding the cumulative effect of the alleged errors established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel).

At the PCR hearing, Goins asserted that he was bipolar and that trial counsel should have investigated Goins' diagnosis and requested a competency evaluation. While Goins also testified at his criminal trial that he was bipolar and manic depressive, we note Goins did not put forth any evidence that he was either insane at the time of the assaults or incompetent at the time of trial. See Jeter v State, 308 S.C. 230, 233, 417 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1992) (affirming the denial of PCR where the petitioner failed to present live medical testimony at the PCR hearing to show "a reasonable probability that he was either insane at the time of the [incident] or incompetent at the time of [trial].") (internal quotation omitted); Daniel v. State, 282 S.C. 155, 158-59, 317 S.E.2d 746, 748 (1984) (reversing the grant of relief where there is no evidence showing that the failure of counsel to investigate the defendant's mental condition was prejudicial).

Moreover as to the relief granted on the ABWIK conviction, we find that the PCR court erred as a matter of law in determining that Goins was prejudiced by the failure to introduce the evidence at issue. The PCR judge based his analysis upon the fact that a jury could interpret the applicant's conduct as impulsive and dangerous, but not with malice aforethought; thus, the court opined the jury could return a verdict of ABHAN,...