Green v. State, No. 25059.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBURNETT, Justice
Citation338 S.C. 428,527 S.E.2d 98
PartiesBurney Don GREEN, Respondent, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Docket NumberNo. 25059.
Decision Date24 January 2000

338 S.C. 428
527 S.E.2d 98

Burney Don GREEN, Respondent,
v.
The STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner

No. 25059.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted December 15, 1999.

Decided January 24, 2000.


338 S.C. 430
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, of Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for petitioner

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

338 S.C. 431
Division (SLED) in conjunction with the Conway Police Department. SLED agents parked a van outside a bar in Conway, where respondent was standing in a group of men. An agent called respondent over and asked for a "twenty," meaning a twenty dollar rock of crack cocaine. Respondent returned to the group of men. The agents testified respondent returned with the drugs and accepted a marked twenty dollar bill. Respondent testified he never went back to the van, rather, another man in the group, identified as A.J., sold the agents the cocaine

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

338 S.C. 432
his counsel's ineffective performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), Judge v. State, 321 S.C. 554, 471 S.E.2d 146 (1996). In order to prove prejudice, an applicant must show that but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result of the trial would have been different. Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 480 S.E.2d 733 (1997). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Id. If there is any probative evidence to support the findings of the PCR judge, those findings must be upheld. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989). Likewise, a PCR judge's findings should not be upheld if there is no probative evidence to support them. Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996)

The PCR court ruled defense counsel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • State v. Young, No. 3983.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 Mayo 2005
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 Octubre 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 13 Junio 2018
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 17 Julio 2006
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • State v. Young, No. 3983.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 Mayo 2005
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 3 Octubre 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 13 Junio 2018
    ...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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 17 Julio 2006
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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