Hyman v. State, No. 21841

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation299 S.E.2d 330,278 S.C. 501
PartiesDoris HYMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 21841
Decision Date04 January 1983

Page 330

299 S.E.2d 330
278 S.C. 501
Doris HYMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 21841.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 4, 1983.

Page 331

Appellate Defender, John L. Sweeny and Asst. Appellate Defender, William Isaac Diggs, of S.C. Comm'n of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen., Donald J. Zelenka and Larry L. Vanderbilt, Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant was convicted of murder and armed robbery and received respective sentences of life and twenty-five years' imprisonment, to be served consecutively.

Her application for post-conviction relief was denied after a hearing. She appeals from that denial. We affirm.

[278 S.C. 502] The appellant asserts representation was ineffective because her trial counsel did not object that the sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This point was not raised in her application or at the hearing and is not properly before us. State v. Newton, 274 S.C. 287, 262 S.E.2d 906 (1980).

The appellant argues also that sentencing for both crimes violated the prohibition on double jeopardy. She made no objection on this point at trial and may present it now only to support a claim of ineffective representation, not as a separate ground for relief. Cummings v. State, 274 S.C. 26, 260 S.E.2d 187 (1979).

The hearing judge found counsel performed up to the standard of Marzullo v. Maryland, 561 F.2d 540 (4th Cir.1977). The evidence abundantly supports that finding, which we affirm. Griffin v. Warden, S.C., 286 S.E.2d 145 (1982).

Therefore, we affirm the denial of post-conviction relief.

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...at trial or in direct appeal cannot be asserted in PCR application absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501, 299 S.E.2d 330 (1983) (same); Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 363, 426 S.E.2d 795, 797 (1993) (explaining that defendant who pleads guilt......
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...cannot be asserted in an application for post-conviction relief absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501, 299 S.E.2d 330 We conclude that, contrary to Drayton's contention, Yates and Thompson do not stand for the proposition that we implicitly have a......
  • Fortune v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 4, 2019
    ...asserted in an application for post-conviction relief absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." (citing Hyman v. State , 278 S.C. 501, 502, 299 S.E.2d 330, 331 (1983) )); Hyman, 278 S.C. at 502, 299 S.E.2d at 331 ("The appellant argues also that sentencing for both cri......
  • James v. Warden, C/A No.: 1:13-3499-MGL-SVH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • January 28, 2015
    ...which is neither raised at PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is procedurally barred from appellate review); Hyman v. State, 299 S.E.2d 330, 331 (1983) (petitioner failed to preserve for review on appeal claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object that sentences ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Al-Shabazz v. State, No. 24995.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 23, 1999
    ...at trial or in direct appeal cannot be asserted in PCR application absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501, 299 S.E.2d 330 (1983) (same); Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 363, 426 S.E.2d 795, 797 (1993) (explaining that defendant who pleads guilt......
  • Drayton v. Evatt, No. 23852
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 9, 1993
    ...cannot be asserted in an application for post-conviction relief absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501, 299 S.E.2d 330 We conclude that, contrary to Drayton's contention, Yates and Thompson do not stand for the proposition that we implicitly have a......
  • Fortune v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 4, 2019
    ...asserted in an application for post-conviction relief absent a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel." (citing Hyman v. State , 278 S.C. 501, 502, 299 S.E.2d 330, 331 (1983) )); Hyman, 278 S.C. at 502, 299 S.E.2d at 331 ("The appellant argues also that sentencing for both cri......
  • James v. Warden, C/A No.: 1:13-3499-MGL-SVH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • January 28, 2015
    ...which is neither raised at PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is procedurally barred from appellate review); Hyman v. State, 299 S.E.2d 330, 331 (1983) (petitioner failed to preserve for review on appeal claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failure to object that sentences ......
  • 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