Holland v. State, No. 24419

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL; FINNEY
Citation322 S.C. 111,470 S.E.2d 378
PartiesRichard HOLLAND, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Docket NumberNo. 24419
Decision Date29 April 1996

Page 378

470 S.E.2d 378
322 S.C. 111
Richard HOLLAND, Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
No. 24419.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted March 20, 1996.
Decided April 29, 1996.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa Nesbitt Cosby, Columbia, for Petitioner.

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for Respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

The State appeals from the circuit court's grant of post-conviction relief (PCR) to Richard Holland. We reverse the grant of PCR.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1993, Richard Holland pled guilty to forgery, resisting arrest, petit larceny, and two counts of accessory after the fact to a felony. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on one of the accessory charges, seven years' imprisonment for forgery, one year's imprisonment for resisting arrest, and thirty days' imprisonment for petit larceny, plus restitution. 1 In addition, Holland received a ten year sentence, suspended with five years of probation, for the second count of accessory after the fact to a felony. This ten year sentence was to run consecutively to the sentence for the other accessory charge. The State had recommended concurrent sentences, which the judge rejected as to the second accessory charge. Holland did not file a direct appeal.

[322 S.C. 113] In his application for PCR, Holland alleged his guilty pleas to the above-described charges were not knowingly and voluntarily made. After a PCR hearing at which both Holland and his lawyer from the plea hearing testified, the PCR court granted Holland relief. The PCR court reasoned that Holland did not understand the trial judge could sentence him to a sentence greater than that recommended by the State. The State petitioned for a writ of certiorari, which this Court granted.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The sole issue on appeal is whether there was any evidence to support the PCR court's finding that Holland "did not knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea of guilty to all charges due to the belief that the recommendations [by the solicitor] would be followed." The State argues there was no such evidence. We agree.

To be knowing and voluntary, a plea must be entered with an awareness of its consequences. Dover v. State, 304 S.C. 433, 405 S.E.2d 391 (1991). If there is any evidence to support the findings of the PCR judge, those findings must be upheld....

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • Brown v. State, No. 4297.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 5, 2007
    ...when it is not supported by any probative evidence. Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 347, 534 S.E.2d 682, 686 (2000); Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 Brown argues the PCR judge erred in not finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to comments made by the solicito......
  • Simpson v. Moore, No. 26114.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 13, 2006
    ...to support the findings, this Court will reverse. Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139, 144, 526 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2000) (citing Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 To establish a claim that counsel was ineffective, a PCR applicant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below a......
  • Edmond v. State, No. 25155.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 26, 2000
    ...an appellate court will not affirm the decision when it is not supported by any probative evidence. Holland v. State, 322 S.C. Ill, 470 S.E.2d 378 We conclude the PCR judge erred in denying petitioner's claim because no probative evidence supports his decision. Petitioner has shown error in......
  • Pierce v. State, No. 25043.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 10, 2000
    ...S.C. 145 Cherry v. State, supra. We will not uphold the findings when there is no probative evidence to support them. Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996). Furthermore, we will reverse the PCR judge's decision when it is controlled by an error of law. See Simpson v. State, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • Brown v. State, No. 4297.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 5, 2007
    ...when it is not supported by any probative evidence. Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 347, 534 S.E.2d 682, 686 (2000); Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 Brown argues the PCR judge erred in not finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to comments made by the solicito......
  • Simpson v. Moore, No. 26114.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 13, 2006
    ...to support the findings, this Court will reverse. Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139, 144, 526 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2000) (citing Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 To establish a claim that counsel was ineffective, a PCR applicant must show that (1) counsel's representation fell below a......
  • Edmond v. State, No. 25155.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 26, 2000
    ...an appellate court will not affirm the decision when it is not supported by any probative evidence. Holland v. State, 322 S.C. Ill, 470 S.E.2d 378 We conclude the PCR judge erred in denying petitioner's claim because no probative evidence supports his decision. Petitioner has shown error in......
  • Pierce v. State, No. 25043.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 10, 2000
    ...S.C. 145 Cherry v. State, supra. We will not uphold the findings when there is no probative evidence to support them. Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996). Furthermore, we will reverse the PCR judge's decision when it is controlled by an error of law. See Simpson v. State, ......
  • 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