McCray v. State, No. 23449

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtCHANDLER; GREGORY
Citation408 S.E.2d 241,305 S.C. 329
PartiesJames McCRAY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 23449
Decision Date05 August 1991

Page 241

408 S.E.2d 241
305 S.C. 329
James McCRAY, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 23449.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted June 14, 1991.
Decided Aug. 5, 1991.

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.

CHANDLER, Justice.

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.

[305 S.C. 330] 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.

GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Tappeiner v. State, Appellate Case No. 2013–001885.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 4, 2016
    ...above. 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......
  • Simmons v. State, Appellate Case No. 2014–000387
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 8, 2016
    ...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......
  • Fishburne v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002385
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 2019
    ...the applicant's 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 insufficien......
  • Reese v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-001110
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 18, 2018
    ...orders so that the final order sets forth the required findings and 820 S.E.2d 378 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Tappeiner v. State, Appellate Case No. 2013–001885.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 4, 2016
    ...above. 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......
  • Simmons v. State, Appellate Case No. 2014–000387
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 8, 2016
    ...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......
  • Fishburne v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002385
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 31, 2019
    ...the applicant's 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 insufficien......
  • Reese v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-001110
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 18, 2018
    ...orders so that the final order sets forth the required findings and 820 S.E.2d 378 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......
  • 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