Jeter v. State
| Decision Date | 27 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23650,23650 |
| Citation | 308 S.C. 230,417 S.E.2d 594 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frederick JETER, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Evert Comer, Jr., Denmark, for petitioner.
T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Donald J. Zelenka, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., and Lisa G. Jefferson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Columbia, for respondent.
The petitioner brought this PCR action asserting his plea was involuntary due to his mental incompetence and ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleges his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a mental examination which may have formed the basis for an insanity defense or a determination that he was not competent to stand trial. The Circuit Court denied relief and we affirm.
On October 3, 1989, the petitioner pled guilty to assault and battery with intent to kill and burglary, first degree. According to the facts recited by the officer at his plea, the petitioner kicked in the door of the residence where his wife and child were living. He entered the room where they were sleeping and shot his wife twice, once in the back and once in the head. He then shot himself. His wife's injuries were minor but the petitioner still suffers some sporadic weakness in his legs and blindness in one eye which comes and goes.
At the guilty plea hearing, the petitioner responded appropriately to the trial judge's inquiries. The petitioner indicated he understood the crimes charged and his possible sentence.
At the PCR evidentiary hearing, there was no live medical testimony. Several medical records were introduced dating immediately after the shooting to one month after his plea. These records include statements indicating, in the opinion of the medical personnel, the petitioner had some problems with his mentation and was a little slow answering questions. Other portions of the records indicate he was able to give detailed sequential account of the events leading to his incarceration, was socially appropriate and asked relevant questions. The facts upon which these conclusions were drawn and the qualifications of the medical personnel are not in the record. It is clear, however, none of the opinions given were the result of any psychological evaluation of any depth.
The petitioner's family members testified they felt his plea was involuntary. The petitioner's brother-in-law denied, however, the petitioner was not in his right mind. The petitioner's pastor testified the petitioner was coherent at his plea hearing and understood what was being said to him.
The petitioner's trial attorney testified he knew the petitioner for several years and defended him in prior criminal trials. The attorney testified he could see no change in the petitioner from his behavior before he shot himself, nor did the trial attorney "notice anything abnormal to make me think he was mentally deficient." App. at 156.
Due process prohibits the conviction of a person who is mentally incompetent. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956). This right cannot be waived by a guilty plea. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). The test of competency to enter a plea is the same as required to stand trial. State v. Lambert, 266 S.C. 574, 225 S.E.2d 340 (1976). The accused must have sufficient capability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Carnes v. State, 275 S.C. 353, 271 S.E.2d 121 (1980). In a PCR action, the petitioner bears the burden of proof and is required to show by a preponderance of the evidence he was incompetent at the time of his plea. SCRCP Rule 71.1(e) (formerly Sup.Ct.Rule 50(4). Any evidence of probative value to support the post conviction judge's factual findings is sufficient to uphold those findings on appeal. Webb v. State, 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E.2d 839 (1984). We find the lower court's determination that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof is supported by the evidence. The excerpts from the medical records are of little probative value. The opinions given are contradictory and do not directly relate to the petitioner's ability to consult with his attorney or to understand the proceedings. Additionally, the basis of the opinions is not provided. Further, the testimony of the petitioner's pastor and defense attorney along with the petitioner's responses at his plea hearing support the petitioner's competence.
The petitioner argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to request a mental examination which may have formed the basis of an insanity defense or a determination that he was not competent to stand trial.
Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. McFadden
...of rational understanding and [has] a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceeding against him." Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 417 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1992). An Applicant challenging his competency to plead must prove this allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.An A......
-
Young v. Lewis
...a finding that Counsel was deficient for failing to obtain an evaluation prior to Applicant's guilty plea. SeeJeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 232, 417 S.E.2d 594, 596 (I992) (Applicant "is required to show by a preponderance of the evidence he was incompetent at the time of his plea").Additio......
-
Garren v. State, Appellate Case No. 2015-000756
...of the plea." Ramirez v. State , 419 S.C. 14, 21, 795 S.E.2d 841, 845 (2017) (internal marks omitted) (quoting Jeter v. State , 308 S.C. 230, 233, 417 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1992) ); see Matthews v. State , 358 S.C. 456, 458, 596 S.E.2d 49, 50 (2004) ("Due process prohibits the conviction of an i......
-
State v. Colden
...the request. We disagree. "Due process of law prohibits the conviction of a person who is mentally incompetent." Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 232, 417 S.E.2d 594, 595 (1992) (citing Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956)); State v. Singleton, 322 S.C. 480......