Griffin v. Martin

Decision Date17 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 21864,21864
Citation278 S.C. 620,300 S.E.2d 482
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJoseph Lindsay GRIFFIN, Appellant, v. George N. MARTIN, III, Warden, and State of South Carolina, Respondents.

Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S.C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Retired Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys.Gen. William K. Moore and Donald J. Zelenka, Columbia, for respondents.

NESS, Justice:

This is an appeal from the dismissal of appellant's post-conviction relief application.Appellant pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.He now contends his plea was involuntary and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.We disagree and affirm.

In the early morning hours of November 10, 1977, appellant went to the victim's place of employment.Armed with a rifle, he waited for several hours in the woods next to the parking lot for his ex-girlfriend.As she approached her car, appellant stepped from the woods and fired nine shots, seven of which struck her.Several of the victim's fellow employees witnessed the slaying.Appellant then turned the rifle over to someone at the plant and waited for the police to arrive.

Appellant contends he should be granted relief because his attorney advised him he would be eligible for parole in ten years if he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life imprisonment, when in fact appellant would not be eligible for parole for twenty years.S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(1976).

Normally, parole eligibility is a collateral consequence of sentencing of which a defendant need not be specifically advised before entering a guilty plea.Bell v. North Carolina, 576 F.2d 564(4th Cir.1978).However, appellant contends Strader v. Garrison, 611 F.2d 61(4th Cir.1979) mandates his plea be vacated because he was actively misinformed about his parole eligibility.

In Strader, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to apply the collateral consequence rule because the defendant relied on erroneous advice concerning parole eligibility in entering his plea.Here, appellant failed to prove he relied on the misinformation.

Appellant's counsel testified he advised appellant to plead guilty because the case against him was overwhelming, and the solicitor had agreed not to seek the death penalty if appellant pleaded guilty.In an appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief, we will uphold the trial court's...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
12 cases
  • Thompson v. McFadden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • April 8, 2016
    ...475 (2002). The Supreme Court found the program was the functional equivalent of parole for other inmates. Applying Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983) and Knox v. State, 340 S.C. 81, 530 S.E.2d 887 (2000), the Supreme Court found that counsel is under no duty to advise a......
  • City of Ottawa v. Lester
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 1991
    ...N.J.Super. 617, 622, 508 A.2d 1161 (1986), aff'd 107 N.J. 603, 527 A.2d 439 (1987) (loss of public employment); Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 621, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983) (parole eligibility); State v. Barton, 93 Wash.2d 301, 305, 609 P.2d 1353 (1980) (habitual criminal charge); State v. S......
  • Williams v. Duffy
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 1, 1999
    ...(5th Cir.1967); State v. Daniels, 114 N.C.App. 501, 442 S.E.2d 161 (1994); Houle v. State, 482 N.W.2d 24 ( N.D.1992); Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983). See also Anno., 10 A.L.R.4th 8, § 32 (1981). If a defendant's actual knowledge of such collateral consequences is not......
  • Randall v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 12, 2004
    ...consequence of sentencing of which a defendant need not be specifically advised before entering a guilty plea. Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983). See also Knox v. State, 340 S.C. 81, 530 S.E.2d 887 (2000)(counsel is not ineffective for failing to advise a defendant rega......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Invalid date
    ...Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 527 S.E.2d 98 (2000)........................................................260, 264-265 Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983)................................................................. 303 Harden v. State, 360 S.C. 405, 602 S.E.2d 48 (20......
  • J. Post-conviction Relief Considerations
    • United States
    • Drug Litigation in South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter IX Sentencing
    • Invalid date
    ...336 S.C. 329, 520 S.E.2d 801 (1999).[177] Randall v. State, 356 S.C. 639, 641, 591 S.E.2d 608, 609 (2004) (citing Griffin v. Martin, 278 S.C. 620, 300 S.E.2d 482 (1983)).[178] Randall v. State, 356 S.C. 639, 591 S.E.2d 608 (2004).[179] Randall v. State, 356 S.C. 639, 591 S.E.2d 608 (2004); ......

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