Horton v. State

Decision Date16 December 1991
Docket NumberNo. 23511,23511
Citation306 S.C. 252,411 S.E.2d 223
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesBobby HORTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Asst. Appellate Defender M. Anne Pearce, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Asst. Atty. Gen., Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

This Court granted certiorari to review the circuit court's denial of post-conviction relief (PCR) to PetitionerBobby Horton.After considering the record and reviewing the applicable law, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

The sole issue before this Court is whether petitioner is entitled to PCR on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

On September 4, 1986, Michael Peaster(Agent Peaster), an undercover agent with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division purchased 1.877 grams of cocaine from a man introduced to him as Bobby Horton by Kerry Garner, a confidential informant.The transaction occurred at approximately 10:20 P.M. outside the Spring Hills Club.The petitioner was arrested on February 7, 1987, and later indicted for distribution of cocaine.

The petitioner did not testify at his trial.He was convicted of distribution of cocaine and sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years and a $10,000 fine; suspended upon service of ten years, payment of the fine, and probation for five years.Petitioner's direct appeal was dismissed, State v. Horton, Memo.Op.No. 89-MO-088(S.C.Sup.Ct. filed February 21, 1989).

Petitioner filed an application for PCR alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel on the grounds that 1) trial counsel gave petitioner erroneous advice on which petitioner based his decision not to testify; and 2) trial counsel failed to object to impermissible testimony.After a hearing, the PCR court issued its order finding that the matters raised a) had been refuted by the record; b) did not indicate any deficiency on the part of trial counsel; or c) were not sufficient to show prejudice to the petitioner.The PCR court dismissed the application with prejudice and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the state.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and this Court granted certiorari to review only Question 1.

Petitioner maintains his decision not to testify was based on trial counsel's advice that he would be subject to cross examination on two prior criminal convictions.Petitioner's record shows a conviction in 1972 for assault and battery with intent to kill and a 1980 conviction for simple possession of marijuana.Petitioner contends trial counsel's advice was in error since neither conviction was admissible for the purpose of impeachment.

Petitioner's trial counsel testified at the PCR hearing that his advice was based upon counsel's desire to prevent petitioner's two prior convictions from being introduced to impeach the petitioner's credibility.

In order to meet the two-pronged test establishing ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must prove 1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness; and 2) that, but for counsel's error, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different.Martinez v. State, 304 S.C. 39, 403 S.E.2d 113, 114(1991);Butler v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 334 S.E.2d 813(1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1094, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 908(1986).

We address first petitioner's conviction for simple possession of marijuana, which does not constitute a crime of moral turpitude.A prior conviction may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness only if such conviction involves a crime of moral turpitude.State v. Drakeford, 290 S.C. 338, 350 S.E.2d 391(1986).Hence, counsel's advice was the result of an erroneous legal syllogism.

Second, the offense of assault and battery with intent to kill for which petitioner was convicted in 1972 is classified as a crime of moral turpitude.However, the lapse of fifteen years between petitioner's 1972 conviction and his 1987 trial for distribution of cocaine raises the issue of remoteness in time.The decision of whether a prior conviction is too remote in time for admissibility to impeach a defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge.State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1...

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
10 cases
  • Savoy v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 31 Julio 2014
    ...record, he would have testified in his own defense.”); Jones v. State, 79 Hawai'i 330, 902 P.2d 965, 970 (1995); Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223, 224 (1991); Everhart v. State, 773 So.2d 78, 79 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000). 10.Winters v. State, 434 Md. 527, 76 A.3d 986 (2013), does ......
  • Calene v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 5 Febrero 1993
    ...Com. v. DeGeorge, 506 Pa. 445, 485 A.2d 1089 (1984); Com. ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967); Horton v. State, 411 S.E.2d 223 (S.C.1991); and State v. Wickline, 184 W.Va. 12, 399 S.E.2d 42 (1990). See also Murray v. State, 776 P.2d 206 (Wyo.1989); Kallas v. Stat......
  • Tilghman v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1996
    ...then assistance of counsel was ineffective and plea based on that advice could not have been knowing and willing); Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991) (accused received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel informed him that he could be cross-examined abo......
  • State v. Joseph
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 17 Julio 1998
    ...stand, he may be impeached by the introduction into evidence of convictions for crimes of moral turpitude. See, e.g., Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Major, 301 S.C. 181, 391 S.E.2d 235 (1990). In South Carolina, possession of cocaine is considered a crime of ......
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) Chapter 1 - South carolina rules of evidence Article VI. WITNESSES
    • Invalid date
    ...supra. Instead, the determination whether a conviction was too remote rested in the discretion of the trial judge. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The ten yea......
  • Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2021 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article VI. Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...supra. Instead, the determination whether a conviction was too remote rested in the discretion of the trial judge. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The ten yea......
  • C. Classification of Offenses
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter I General Principles of Criminal Law
    • Invalid date
    ...constituted ineffective assistance of counsel when the erroneous advice caused the defendant to elect to not testify. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991). Simple possession of marijuana is not a crime of moral turpitude. Counsel's advice was also deficient for its conclusio......
  • Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
    • United States
    • South Carolina Evidence Annotated (SCBar) (2019 Ed.) Chapter 1 South Carolina Rules of Evidence Article VI. Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...supra. Instead, the determination whether a conviction was too remote rested in the discretion of the trial judge. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The ten yea......
  • Get Started for Free

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