McCray v. State, 23449
| Decision Date | 05 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23449,23449 |
| Citation | 408 S.E.2d 241,305 S.C. 329 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | James McCRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
Petitioner James McCray seeks certiorari from the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR), alleging that the PCR court failed to make the required findings of fact concerning his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse and remand for a new PCR hearing.
McCray was convicted on three counts of assaulting a police officer and one count of resisting arrest. He sought PCR, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the State's numerous references to his criminal record and prior bad acts and, thereafter, in failing to request a limiting instruction.
The PCR court dismissed McCray's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel without making findings of fact on the specific allegations raised.
S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-80 (1976), requires the PCR court to "make specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue presented."
The PCR court's conclusions regarding ineffective assistance are insufficient for appellate review and fail to meet the standard set forth in the statute.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying McCray relief and remand for a new PCR hearing.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...said it was taking the extraordinary action of remanding the case to the PCR court “because [the Court's] opinion in McCray [ v. State , 305 S.C. 329, 408 S.E.2d 241 (1991) ] is not being followed.” Pruitt , 310 S.C. at 255 n.2, 423 S.E.2d at 128 n.2. In McCray, this Court reminded PCR cour......
-
Tappeiner v. State
...S.C.Code Ann. § 17–27–80 ; see also Marlar v. State, 375 S.C. 407, 408, 653 S.E.2d 266, 266 (2007) (per curiam); McCray v. State, 305 S.C. 329, 330, 408 S.E.2d 241, 241 (1991). Here, the PCR court failed to comply with these requirements, dealing with twenty-three of the twenty-seven ground......
-
Fishburne v. State
...claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without making any findings of fact on the specific allegations raised. 305 S.C. 329, 330, 408 S.E.2d 241, 241 (1991). We reversed and remanded, holding: "The PCR court's conclusions regarding ineffective assistance are insufficient for appellate ......
-
Reese v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-001110
...proposed orders so that the final order sets forth the required findings and reasons for those findings"); McCray v. State , 305 S.C. 329, 330, 408 S.E.2d 241, 241 (1991) (finding "[t]he PCR court's conclusions regarding ineffective assistance are insufficient for appellate review and fail ......