Green v. State, No. 25059.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Writing for the Court | BURNETT, Justice |
Citation | 338 S.C. 428,527 S.E.2d 98 |
Parties | Burney Don GREEN, Respondent, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
Docket Number | No. 25059. |
Decision Date | 24 January 2000 |
338 S.C. 428
527 S.E.2d 98
v.
The STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner
No. 25059.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted December 15, 1999.
Decided January 24, 2000.
Assistant Appellate Defender Melissa J. Reed Kimbrough, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for respondent.
BURNETT, Justice:
Respondent was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within proximity of a school. His application for post-conviction relief (PCR) was granted. We affirm.
FACTS
Respondent was arrested as a result of an undercover sting operation conducted by the South Carolina Law Enforcement
One of the agents, who was wired with a microphone transmitting to a surveillance team nearby, described respondent to the surveillance team, and respondent was arrested. Respondent testified that when the surveillance officers arrived, the men standing with him ran. He did not run "because I figure I didn't do anything; I don't need to run anywhere." The marked twenty dollar bill was not recovered.
On cross-examination, the State impeached respondent with a 1990 conviction for possession of crack cocaine and a 1991 conviction for possession of cocaine.1 The trial court gave the jury limiting instructions. The jury found respondent guilty as charged. Respondent was granted PCR for his trial counsel's failure to object that the prejudicial effect of his prior convictions outweighed their probative value.
ISSUE
Did the PCR court err in finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to object that the prejudicial effect of respondent's prior convictions outweighed their probative value?
DISCUSSION
In a PCR proceeding, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove the allegations in his application. Bell v. State, 321 S.C. 238, 467 S.E.2d 926 (1996); Rule 71.1(e), SCRCP. For an applicant to be granted PCR as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show both: (1) his counsel failed to render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms, and (2) he was prejudiced by
The PCR court ruled defense counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Young, No. 3983.
...crime and the charged crime, the importance of the defendant's testimony, and the centrality of the credibility issue. Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 433-34, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000). In determining whether similar prior convictions can be used to impeach the accused, the trial court must w......
-
State v. Black, No. 27176.
...at 125. This Court has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis. See, e.g., Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 432, 527 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2000) (“[T]he new evidentiary rule removes the necessity of determining whether a crime is one of moral turpitude.”)......
-
State v. Shands, Appellate Case No. 2015-001199
...and the charged crime; (4) the importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue. Green v. State , 338 S.C. 428, 433–34, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000).424 S.C. 122This case presents the novel issue in South Carolina of whether parole following a prison ter......
-
State v. Bryant, No. 26183.
...The court of appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions in a 2:1 decision. Bryant, 356 S.C. 485, 589 S.E.2d 775. Relying on Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 527 S.E.2d 98 (2000), the majority reviewed the trial court's statements as a whole and concluded that the trial court had an appropriate ......
-
State v. Young, No. 3983.
...crime and the charged crime, the importance of the defendant's testimony, and the centrality of the credibility issue. Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 433-34, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000). In determining whether similar prior convictions can be used to impeach the accused, the trial court must w......
-
State v. Black, No. 27176.
...at 125. This Court has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis. See, e.g., Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 432, 527 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2000) (“[T]he new evidentiary rule removes the necessity of determining whether a crime is one of moral turpitude.”)......
-
State v. Shands, Appellate Case No. 2015-001199
...and the charged crime; (4) the importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) the centrality of the credibility issue. Green v. State , 338 S.C. 428, 433–34, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000).424 S.C. 122This case presents the novel issue in South Carolina of whether parole following a prison ter......
-
State v. Bryant, No. 26183.
...The court of appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions in a 2:1 decision. Bryant, 356 S.C. 485, 589 S.E.2d 775. Relying on Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 527 S.E.2d 98 (2000), the majority reviewed the trial court's statements as a whole and concluded that the trial court had an appropriate ......