McCray v. State, 24200

Citation317 S.C. 557,455 S.E.2d 686
Decision Date27 February 1995
Docket NumberNo. 24200,24200
PartiesDanny McCRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Chief Atty. Daniel T. Stacey and Asst. Appellate Defender Tara Dawn Shurling, both of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Deputy Atty. Gen. J. Emory Smith, Jr., and Asst. Attys. Gen. Teresa Nesbitt Cosby and Ruby B. McClain, Columbia, for respondent.

MOORE, Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the denial of petitioner's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We affirm.

FACTS

In 1990, petitioner was tried in absentia and convicted of distributing crack cocaine to an undercover police officer. Petitioner was later sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment and fined $25,000. In 1991, petitioner filed a PCR application alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, petitioner's application was denied.

ISSUE

Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to prepare and present an entrapment defense. 1

DISCUSSION

At the PCR hearing, petitioner maintained his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare and present an entrapment defense. Specifically, petitioner argued counsel was ineffective for failing to question potential witnesses, for failing to present their testimony at trial, and for failing to request a jury charge on entrapment. In support of this argument, petitioner presented three witnesses whose testimony, petitioner contends, would have supported an entrapment defense.

After hearing the testimony presented by petitioner and the State, the PCR judge concluded trial counsel was not ineffective. Petitioner argues this was error. We disagree.

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant has the burden of proving that counsel's performance was deficient and that this deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Martinez v. State, 304 S.C. 39, 403 S.E.2d 113 (1991). When there is evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the PCR judge, this Court will affirm those findings and conclusions. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989).

In this case, trial counsel testified he met with petitioner prior to the day of trial to discuss the facts of the case. During this discussion, petitioner denied any involvement and claimed he did not distribute any drugs. Consequently, counsel attempted to develop and present a defense based on misidentification and alibi. When asked why he did not pursue an entrapment defense, counsel stated: "I did not consider the entrapment aspect because initially [petitioner] was telling me that he did not do it." Counsel testified petitioner finally admitted involvement in the incident about fifteen minutes prior to trial, but thereafter "panicked" and fled. Counsel also testified he interviewed one of petitioner's witnesses prior to trial and, as far as counsel understood, the witness did not know anything about what had happened between petitioner and the undercover police officer. In addition, counsel testified no one, including petitioner, mentioned anything about any other witnesses to the incident.

We find co...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 5, 2007
    ...275, 279, 644 S.E.2d 769, 771 (Ct.App.2007) (citing Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 368, 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005)); McCray v. State, 317 S.C. 557, 455 S.E.2d 686 (1995). An appellate court must affirm the PCR court's decision when its findings are supported by any evidence of probative va......
  • Simpson v. Moore, 26114.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 13, 2006
    ...findings of fact and conclusions of law. Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 109, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) (citing McCray v. State, 317 S.C. 557, 455 S.E.2d 686 (1995)). On review, a PCR judge's findings will be upheld if there is any evidence probative value sufficient to support them. Cherr......
  • Southerland v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 13, 1999
    ...affirmed. State v. Southerland, 316 S.C. 377, 447 S.E.2d 862 (1994). Thereafter, the circuit court denied Southerland's application for PCR. ISSUE Was appellate counsel ineffective in failing to raise and brief the issue of the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that the terms "life......
  • Caldwell v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • January 29, 2016
    ...a Rule 59(e) motion asking the PCR judge to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on his allegations); McCray v. State, 455 S.E.2d 686, n.1 (S.C. 1995) (stating issues not raised in a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court are not preserved for appellate revi......
  • 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