Rayford v. State, 24053
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 443 S.E.2d 805,314 S.C. 46 |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24053,24053 |
| Parties | James A. RAYFORD, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
Page 805
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Decided April 25, 1994.
[314 S.C. 47] Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. James Patrick Hudson, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for petitioner.
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of SC Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent.
BRISTOW, Acting Associate Justice:
We granted certiorari to review the State's claim that the post-conviction relief (PCR)
Page 806
judge erred in vacating James A. Rayford's (Rayford) convictions and sentences on the ground that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We reverse.I. Facts
Rayford was indicted for three counts of distributing crack cocaine and three counts of distributing crack cocaine within the proximity of a school. Pursuant to negotiations made by public defender Robert Tinsley (Tinsley), Rayford pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing crack cocaine and was given concurrent fifteen year sentences on each charge. No direct appeal was taken. Rayford thereafter filed an application for post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming, among other things, that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his guilty plea "involuntarily and unintelligently made."
At the PCR hearing, Rayford testified that public defender Robert Hall (Hall) was assigned to his case before Tinsley and had promised to recommend a lenient sentence under the Youthful Offender Act. 1 According to Rayford, Tinsley made the same representation, but did not recommend a youthful offender sentence at the plea hearing. Tinsley denied having told Rayford that he would recommend a youthful offender sentence and testified that the only agreement was for concurrent[314 S.C. 48] fifteen year sentences. Tinsley further testified that Rayford was told he was facing a fifteen year sentence. The PCR judge found Tinsley's testimony credible, but ruled that Hall was ineffective because Rayford purportedly based his plea on Hall's unfulfilled promise to recommend a youthful offender sentence. In accordance with that finding, the PCR judge vacated Rayford's guilty pleas and ordered a new trial.
II. Discussion
The State contends that the PCR judge erred in vacating Rayford's guilty pleas. We agree.
When a defendant is represented by counsel during the plea process and enters his plea on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick v. Warden, C/A No. 5:14-cv-4367-BHH-KDW
...has refuted this allegation. See Stalk v. State, 375 S.C. 289, 300, 652 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 2007); see also Rayford v. State, 314 S.C. 46, 48-49, 443 S.E.2d 805, 806 (1994) (where transcript of guilty plea proceeding refuted applicant's claim that he did not understand the terms of a ......
-
Boston v. Reynolds, C/A No.: 5:14-cv-4473-MGL-KDW
...has refuted this allegation. See Stalk v. State, 375 S.C. 289, 300, 652 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 2007); see also Rayford v. State, 314 S.C. 46, 48-49, 443 S.E.2d 805, 806 (1994) (where transcript of guilty plea proceeding refuted applicant's claim that he did not understand the terms of a ......
-
Stalk v. State, 4298.
...of the guilty plea clearly refutes Stalk's assertion that he did not understand the terms of the guilty plea. See Rayford v. State, 314 S.C. 46, 48-49, 443 S.E.2d 805, 806 (1994) (where transcript of guilty plea proceeding refuted applicant's claim that he did not understand the terms of a ......
-
Hansen v. Warden, Wateree River Corr. Inst., Civil Action No. 6:11-2670-RMG-KFM
...and applicant indicated to judge that the understood the possible sentences and the terms of the plea agreement); Rayford v. State, 443 S.E.2d 805, 806 (S.C. 1994) (record of plea proceeding, including applicant's answers to the trial judge's questions, clearly established that applicant co......