Putnam v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 2016
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2012–212396,Opinion No. 5408
• Citation: 789 S.E.2d 594,417 S.C. 252
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Martina R. Putnam, Petitioner, v. State of South Carolina, Respondent.

417 S.C. 252

789 S.E.2d 594

Martina R. Putnam, Petitioner,

v.State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012–212396

Opinion No. 5408

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard October 13, 2015

Filed June 8, 2016

Rehearing Denied August 17, 2016

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Daniel Francis Gourley, II, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

LOCKEMY, J.:

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) action, Martina R. Putnam contends the PCR court erred in dismissing her application for PCR and finding trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to adequately prepare her case and call witnesses to testify in her defense. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Putnam was charged with homicide by child abuse in the death of her thirteen-month-old son (the Victim). At trial, the State sought to prove Putnam willfully and unlawfully killed the Victim by abuse or neglect. Putnam attempted to shift suspicion to her husband, Patrick, and her older children—Sibling One, age nine, and Sibling Two, age six (collectively, the Children)—who were also in the house when the Victim's fatal injuries occurred.

When Putnam awoke on the morning of the Victim's death, Patrick and the Children were already awake; Patrick was in the kitchen preparing food, and the Children were playing outside. Putnam testified she fed the Victim breakfast, took him to the bathroom for his bath, and laid him on the bathroom floor. Putnam stated she went to the bedroom to get a towel and when she returned to the bathroom, the Victim was not moving and felt like a “rag doll” in her hands. Officer Gwen Herod of the Sumter County Sheriff's Office, who interviewed Putnam, testified that Putnam claimed she did not know how the Victim's injury happened and admitted she was the only person with the Victim during that time.

Officer Herod conducted a videotaped forensic interview with the Children. Her understanding was Sibling One had interacted with the Victim before Putnam did on the morning of the Victim's death. Officer Herod testified Sibling One said he picked the Victim up from his crib that morning before going outside to play, hugged him, and then put him back in the crib. Additionally, Officer Herod stated Sibling One described picking the Victim up and holding him upside down by his feet two days before the Victim died. The trial court allowed this testimony after the parties stipulated to its admissibility. Outside the presence of the jury, trial counsel asked Officer Herod whether Sibling One reported seeing Patrick pick the Victim up in a similar manner. Without reviewing the videotaped interview, Officer Herod could not recall whether Sibling One said someone else also picked the Victim up by his feet. Trial counsel noted that in the videotaped interview, Sibling One described holding the Victim by his feet and went “into this whole process about how [Patrick] used to do this and how they would hold his head and everything else.” The trial court ruled Sibling One's comments concerning Patrick's alleged conduct were inadmissible hearsay under section 17–23–175 of the South Carolina Code (2014) because Sibling One did not testify at trial and were beyond the scope of the stipulation.¹

Outside the presence of the jury, trial counsel proffered Officer Herod's testimony that on the day the Victim died, Patrick allegedly threatened to kill her and another officer. Trial counsel argued Patrick's threat was relevant because it demonstrated Patrick, who had access to the Victim before Putnam awoke on the day he died, had a tendency to express violence. The trial court excluded the proffered testimony because the threat was not relevant.

To demonstrate Sibling One's propensity for violence, Putnam proffered testimony that while in foster care following Putnam's arrest, Sibling One kicked Sibling Two so hard that the kick left a shoe print on Sibling Two's chest. The trial court refused to admit the testimony under Rule 404(b), SCRE, and determined the testimony did not survive the analysis set forth in State v. Gregory² because it merely cast a bare suspicion of guilt on Sibling One.

The State presented testimony from three doctors who explained the Victim's medical history and injuries. Dr. Joel Sexton, the pathologist who conducted the Victim's autopsy, concluded the cause of death was a subdural hematoma resulting from an abusive head trauma like a shaking or impact injury and ruled the death a homicide. Dr. Sexton opined the Victim could have experienced a lucid period after his impact injury but before he lost consciousness; however, the other two doctors disagreed with Dr. Sexton's opinion. Dr. Sexton testified the Victim was born premature and suffered from delayed development. In addition, Putnam testified the Victim suffered from severe apnea, reflux, digestive problems, breathing problems, and retinopathy.

The jury found Putnam guilty, and the trial court sentenced her to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Putnam filed a direct appeal, and this court affirmed her conviction and sentence. State v. Putnam , Op. No. 2011–UP–526 (S.C. Ct. App. filed Dec. 2, 2011).

Putnam filed a PCR application. At the PCR hearing, Putnam asserted trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call Patrick and the Children to testify about the events occurring in their home on the day the Victim died. She contended if the Children had attended trial and the trial court had admitted the videotape of the Children's interviews, the interviews could have helped her case. At the PCR hearing, neither Patrick nor the Children testified, Putnam did not introduce evidence showing what Patrick and the Children would have testified at trial, and Putnam did not introduce the videotape or transcript of the Children's recorded interviews. Putnam also asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert to testify about the Victim's medical issues and the ways a premature infant can die from a hematoma without suffering child abuse. Putnam did not introduce any expert testimony at the PCR hearing.

The PCR court found trial counsel's investigation fell within reasonable professional norms and Putnam failed to demonstrate prejudice from trial counsel's failure to present additional witnesses. Accordingly, the PCR court denied Putnam's PCR application. This court granted certiorari.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“In reviewing the PCR court's decision, [an appellate court] is concerned only with whether there is any evidence of probative value to support that decision.” Smith v. State , 369 S.C. 135, 138, 631 S.E.2d 260, 261 (2006). This court “will reverse the PCR court only where there is either no probative evidence to support the decision or the decision was controlled by an error of law.” Edwards v. State , 392 S.C. 449, 455, 710 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2011). This court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings of fact. Dempsey v. State , 363 S.C. 365, 368, 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005). “In a PCR proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of establishing that he is entitled to relief.” Lorenzen v. State , 376 S.C. 521, 528, 657 S.E.2d 771, 776 (2008). This court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings on matters of credibility. Walker v. State , 407 S.C. 400, 405, 756 S.E.2d 144, 146 (2014).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Trial counsel must provide “reasonably effective assistance” under “prevailing professional norms.” Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687–88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

“There is a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making all significant decisions in a case.” Caprood v. State , 338 S.C. 103, 109, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000). Under the two-prong test established in Strickland, to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must prove (1) counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case. Leon v. State , 379 S.C. 448, 450, 666 S.E.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 2008).

“Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim.” Strickland , 466 U.S. at 700, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Under the first prong of the Strickland test, “the burden of proof is upon [the] petitioner to show that counsel's performance was deficient as measured by the standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms.” Southerland v. State , 337 S.C. 610, 616, 524 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1999). “[C]riminal defense attorneys have a duty to undertake a reasonable investigation, which at a minimum includes interviewing potential witnesses and making an independent investigation of the facts and circumstances of the case.” Edwards v. State , 392 S.C. 449, 456, 710 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2011). “[W]hen counsel articulates a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct generally will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel.” Lounds v. State , 380 S.C. 454, 462, 670 S.E.2d 646, 650 (2008) (emphasis omitted). “The validity of counsel's strategy is reviewed under ‘an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” Id . (quoting Ingle v. State , 348 S.C. 467, 470, 560 S.E.2d 401, 402 (2002) ).

Concerning the second prong of the Strickland test, “[t]o establish the requisite prejudice necessary to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [the p]etitioner must demonstrate that his attorney's errors had an effect on the judgment against him.” Edwards , 392 S.C. at 45–59, 710 S.E.2d at 65. “A PCR applicant ‘must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’ ” Id . at 459, 710 S.E.2d at 66 (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ). “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the...