Legge v. State, No. 25433.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Citation: 349 S.C. 222,562 S.E.2d 618
• Docket Number: No. 25433.
• Parties: Ronald Wilson LEGGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 01 April 2002

349 S.C. 222
562 S.E.2d 618

Ronald Wilson LEGGE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent

No. 25433.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted February 21, 2002.

Decided April 1, 2002.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 2002.

349 S.C. 223

Timothy Edward Meacham, of Jebaily, Glass & Meacham P.A., of Florence, for petitioner

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General, B. Allen Bullard, and Assistant Attorney General W. Bryan Dukes, all of Columbia, for respondent.

Justice MOORE.

We granted this petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the post-conviction relief (PCR) court erred by finding petitioner had received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We reverse.

FACTS

Petitioner was convicted of one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor (CSC) and one count of a lewd act on a minor. He was sentenced to respective imprisonment terms of fifteen years and five years, to be served concurrently. On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions.

349 S.C. 224

State v. Legge, Op. No. 95-UP-225 (S.C. Ct.App. filed July 25, 1995). We denied a petition for a writ of certiorari from that decision

Petitioner then filed an application for post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the PCR court found appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal. The PCR court granted petitioner a review of the issue pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).¹ Petitioner's remaining allegations were denied.

ISSUE

Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise an issue on appeal regarding testimony of petitioner's lack of remorse? ²

DISCUSSION

For petitioner to be granted PCR as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show both: (1) that his counsel failed to render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms, and (2) that he was prejudiced by his counsel's ineffective assistance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Brown v. State, 340 S.C. 590, 533 S.E.2d 308 (2000).

349 S.C. 225

Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the lack of remorse issue. Had appellate counsel raised the issue, it would not have been preserved for the appellate court's review. See State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 499 S.E.2d 209, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1022, 119 S.Ct. 552, 142 L.Ed.2d 459 (1998) (issue must be raised...