Moorehead v. State, 24742
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOORE; FINNEY |
| Citation | 329 S.C. 329,496 S.E.2d 415 |
| Parties | Gary MOOREHEAD, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | No. 24742,24742 |
| Decision Date | 12 January 1998 |
Page 415
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Decided Jan. 12, 1998.
[329 S.C. 331] Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Page 416
and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, Columbia, for petitioner.Assistant Appellate Defender Lisa T. Gregory, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent.
MOORE, Justice:
On advice of counsel, respondent pled guilty to two separate charges arising from different facts: criminal sexual conduct (CSC) third degree and unlawful use of telephone. No direct appeal was taken. We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the grant of post-conviction relief (PCR) and now reverse.
[329 S.C. 332] FACTS
The following facts were presented at the plea hearing by the assistant solicitor:
Your Honor, as to the unlawful use of telephone, [respondent] called the victim, who is his ex, who is his ex-girlfriend, and harassed and threatened her. One call was overheard by a Lex Morgan, a police officer, who told [respondent] not to call anymore, but he continued to call her....
As to the criminal sexual conduct, the victim is T.G., twelve years old. She was riding around with some friends very late at night on March 4th and went to the home of Mr. Moorehead's brother, [Terry] Moorehead, to ask if she could spend the night because she was in trouble with her mother. She knew Mr. Moorehead's brother, who is deaf. She had told, at the time when she met Mr. Moorehead, she told him she was fifteen. He told her she could sleep in his room, so she went into his room. She fell asleep. When she woke up, he was also awake. They began kissing, and he took off her clothes and had sex with her. She was menstruating at the time. She tells me that it's her understanding that he did use a condom. Your Honor, she said there was no consent. Afterwards, she got on the floor, went to sleep, and Mr. Moorehead slept in the bed. She woke up at seven a.m. and went home. She told her mother three days later. Mr. Moorehead, when questioned by the police, said she had never been in his house; however, she could describe the bedroom. They did find what appeared to be blood stains on the mattress and took them to SLED.
1) Sentencing advice on CSC charge
Respondent's sentence on the CSC charge was ten years, suspended after seven, and five years probation. At the PCR hearing, respondent testified he pled guilty to the CSC charge on counsel's advice that he would receive only probation. He claimed he answered the trial judge's questions regarding the plea affirmatively because
[329 S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cabbagestalk v. McFadden, : 5:14-cv-03771-RMG-KDW
...did ineffective investigation does not support relief absent proffer of the supposed witness' favorable testimony); Moorehead v. State, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (S.C. 1998) ("Failure to conduct an independent investigation does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the allegation......
-
Deas v. Reynolds, C/A No. 5:15-02343-PMD-KDW
...only by mere speculation as to result. Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 385-86, 629 S.E.2d 353, 357 (2006) (citing Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998)). In any ineffectiveness case, a particular decision not to investigate must be directly assessed for reasonable......
-
Dewberry v. Burton, 5:21-1543-RMG-KDW
...only by mere speculation as to result. Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 385-86, 629 S.E.2d 353, 357 (2006) (citing Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998)). Applicant did not any witnesses that could help defend his murder charge that Counsel did not interview or inv......
-
Dewberry v. Burton, 5:21-1543-RMG-KDW
...only by mere speculation as to result. Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 385-86, 629 S.E.2d 353, 357 (2006) (citing Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998)). Applicant did not any witnesses that could help defend his murder charge that Counsel did not interview or inv......