Prince v. State, No. 23220

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGREGORY
Citation301 S.C. 422,392 S.E.2d 462
PartiesAlexander PRINCE, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date29 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23220

Page 462

392 S.E.2d 462
301 S.C. 422
Alexander PRINCE, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 23220.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted May 23, 1990.
Decided May 29, 1990.

Page 463

[301 S.C. 423] Asst. Appellate Defender Wanda Hagler Haile, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Staff Atty. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

GREGORY, Chief Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the denial of post-conviction relief (PCR). We reverse and remand.

Petitioner pleaded guilty to escape and breach of trust and was sentenced to consecutive terms of one year and three years. No direct appeal was taken. Petitioner subsequently filed a PCR application alleging his guilty plea was invalid. This application was denied after a hearing.

Petitioner contends the PCR judge erred in finding his guilty plea valid because there was no valid waiver of counsel under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). To establish a valid [301 S.C. 424] waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial judge addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this Court will look to the record to determine whether petitioner had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source. Wroten v. State, 391 S.E.2d 575 (S.C.1990).

The record indicates petitioner was twenty-two years old at the time of his plea. He was a high-school graduate and had some college education. He had previously pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The record also indicates petitioner was mentally disturbed at the time of his plea. Once incarcerated, he began receiving psychiatric treatment and was still undergoing treatment at the time of the PCR hearing three years later. In response to questioning at the PCR hearing, petitioner exhibited little understanding of criminal proceedings. He testified he relied upon the solicitor's advice at the plea hearing.

We find the record does not demonstrate petitioner was sufficiently aware of the dangers of self-representation to make an informed decision to proceed pro se. We hold the PCR judge erred in finding a valid waiver of counsel. Accordingly,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 practice notes
  • Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, No. 2586
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...come forward with opposing materials. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Christian, 267 S.C. 71, 226 S.E.2d 240 (1976). Id. at 421-22, 392 S.E.2d at 462. Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation, II, 303 S.C. 295, 400 S.E.2d 143 (1991), It is axiomatic summary judgment should not be gra......
  • State v. Pride, 2007-UP-544
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. Thompson 355 S.C. at 262, 584 S.E.2d at 134 (citing Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24, 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990)). Although waiver is most commonly understood as an affirmative verbal request, the intentional and voluntar......
  • Hilton v. Stephon, Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 13, 2018
    ...must be made aware of right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation." Whitehead v. State 426 S.E.2d 315, Prince v. State 392 S.E.2d 462. Richardson v. State 659 S.E.2d 493. "Nevertheless, this record indicates—though does not clearly reveal—Hilton was aware of these advantages." "......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 3659.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 7, 2003
    ...which the accused is (1) advised of his right to counsel and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of selfrepresentation. Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24, 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)). The trial judge must......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
44 cases
  • Strother v. Lexington County Recreation Com'n, No. 2586
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1996
    ...come forward with opposing materials. Title Insurance Co. of Minnesota v. Christian, 267 S.C. 71, 226 S.E.2d 240 (1976). Id. at 421-22, 392 S.E.2d at 462. Dowling v. Home Buyers Warranty Corporation, II, 303 S.C. 295, 400 S.E.2d 143 (1991), It is axiomatic summary judgment should not be gra......
  • State v. Pride, 2007-UP-544
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 20, 2007
    ...and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation. Thompson 355 S.C. at 262, 584 S.E.2d at 134 (citing Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24, 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990)). Although waiver is most commonly understood as an affirmative verbal request, the intentional and voluntar......
  • Hilton v. Stephon, Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • November 13, 2018
    ...must be made aware of right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation." Whitehead v. State 426 S.E.2d 315, Prince v. State 392 S.E.2d 462. Richardson v. State 659 S.E.2d 493. "Nevertheless, this record indicates—though does not clearly reveal—Hilton was aware of these advantages." "......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 3659.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • July 7, 2003
    ...which the accused is (1) advised of his right to counsel and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of selfrepresentation. Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24, 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)). The trial judge must......
  • 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