Smalls v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-001079

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtJUSTICE FEW
Docket NumberAppellate Case No. 2016-001079,Opinion No. 27764
Parties Stephen SMALLS, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decision Date07 February 2018

422 S.C. 174
810 S.E.2d 836

Stephen SMALLS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001079
Opinion No. 27764

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard November 14, 2017
Filed February 7, 2018
Rehearing Denied March 29, 2018


Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jessica Elizabeth Kinard, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

JUSTICE FEW :

422 S.C. 178

In this post-conviction relief (PCR) case, we agree with the court of appeals' finding that trial counsel was deficient, but disagree that the State presented overwhelming evidence of guilt that precluded a finding of prejudice under the second prong of Strickland v. Washington . We find the evidence was not overwhelming, and reverse the court of appeals' finding that counsel's errors resulted in no prejudice.

422 S.C. 179

I. Facts and Procedural History

At almost midnight on May 21, 2000, Jim Lightner and Eugene Green were closing the Bojangles restaurant on Elmwood Avenue in Columbia when a man charged in the door wielding a shotgun. The man forced Lightner to the back of the restaurant to open the safe. When they went to the back, Green escaped out the front door and ran across Elmwood to a gas station to call the police. While Green was on the phone with police, he saw the man walk out the side service door of the Bojangles carrying the shotgun in one hand and a white bag in the other. The man walked out of a wooden gate near the back of the parking lot just as a police cruiser pulled up to the front of the Bojangles. Green told the police to "make a left at the Lizard's Thicket," which would take the officer to where the man exited the wooden gate. When Green saw the cruiser make the left, he said "you got him." Although the officers were unable to find the suspect at that time, they did find a twelve-gauge pump-action shotgun and a white bag containing $1,900 just outside the gate.

Two fingerprint experts later examined the shotgun and determined that one of several prints on the gun belonged to Smalls. After securing a warrant for Smalls' arrest, Investigator Joe Gray drove to Smalls' house. When he saw Smalls walking down a nearby street carrying a child in his arms, Gray stepped out of his vehicle and asked Smalls about the robbery of the Bojangles. Gray testified Smalls "dropped the child" and "began running." Another officer found Smalls

810 S.E.2d 839

later that evening hiding in bushes a few blocks away.

Investigator Paul Mead prepared a photographic lineup that he presented to Lightner. Investigator Gray presented the same lineup to Green. Four days after the robbery, Green identified Smalls. Lightner, however, could not identify Smalls, but did narrow the suspects down to two people, one of whom was Smalls.

At trial in May of 2002, the State introduced Green's pretrial identification of Smalls. Green testified and identified Smalls in the courtroom. The State introduced the fact Lightner narrowed the suspects down to Smalls and one other person. Investigator Gray identified Smalls as the person who dropped the child and ran when he was asked about the

422 S.C. 180

robbery. Both fingerprint experts testified one of the fingerprints on the shotgun belonged to Smalls. The jury convicted Smalls of armed robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years in prison. The court of appeals dismissed his appeal in an unpublished opinion. State v. Smalls , Op. No. 2004-UP-315 (S.C. Ct. App. filed May 13, 2004).

Smalls filed an application for PCR alleging he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The PCR court first held a hearing in 2007. The court held the record open to allow PCR counsel time to investigate the circumstances under which the State dismissed a carjacking charge against Green on the morning of Smalls' trial. The hearing was not reconvened until 2012. The PCR court described the issue regarding the carjacking charge as not only one of ineffective assistance of counsel, but also whether "the State was deceptive" in representations made to the trial court and trial counsel.1 The PCR court denied relief.

We transferred Smalls' petition for a writ of certiorari to the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 243(l) of the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, and the court of appeals granted the petition. The court of appeals then found trial counsel's performance was deficient regarding the carjacking charge and in two other instances. Smalls v. State , 415 S.C. 490, 498-501, 783 S.E.2d 817, 820-22 (Ct. App. 2016). However, the court of appeals found "there was no prejudice resulting from trial counsel's deficient performance because the State presented overwhelming evidence of [Smalls'] guilt." 415 S.C. at 501, 783 S.E.2d at 822. Smalls filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which we granted.

II. Standard of Review

Our standard of review in PCR cases depends on the specific issue before us. We defer to a PCR court's findings of fact and will uphold them if there is evidence in the record to support them. Sellner v. State , 416 S.C. 606, 610, 787 S.E.2d 525, 527 (2016) (citing Jordan v. State , 406 S.C. 443, 448, 752 S.E.2d 538, 540 (2013) ). We review questions of law de novo,

422 S.C. 181

with no deference to trial courts.2 Sellner , 416 S.C. at 610, 787 S.E.2d at 527

810 S.E.2d 840

(citing Jamison v. State , 410 S.C. 456, 465, 765 S.E.2d 123, 127 (2014) ).

III. Deficient Performance

To prove trial counsel's performance was deficient, an applicant must show "counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Williams v. State , 363 S.C. 341, 343, 611 S.E.2d 232, 233 (2005) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.E.2d 674, 693 (1984) ). The court of appeals held trial counsel's performance fell below this standard as to three separate instances. First, trial counsel did not effectively argue that the existence and dismissal of Green's carjacking charge was

422 S.C. 182

admissible as evidence of Green's bias. Second, trial counsel did not object to the State's question to Investigator Mead suggesting Smalls burglarized someone's home to obtain the shotgun. Third, trial counsel did not challenge the State's statement during opening that the police saw Smalls leaving the Bojangles.

A. Dismissal of Green's Carjacking Charge

During a pretrial hearing on the morning of trial, the solicitor asked the trial court to make preliminary rulings on whether Green's prior convictions would be admissible to impeach him under Rule 609 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The trial court ruled Green's convictions for distribution of crack cocaine, use of vehicle without owner's consent, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle were admissible. Trial counsel then asked about the pending carjacking charge, "He has a pending charge, Your Honor, but I don't know if I am allowed to go into that." The solicitor informed the trial court that Green's carjacking charge had been dismissed that morning. Apparently not recognizing that the dismissal of the charge was potentially stronger evidence of bias than the charge itself, trial counsel raised no further argument on the issue, and did not ask the trial court to make a ruling as to whether counsel would be permitted to use the carjacking charge or its dismissal to impeach Green.3

Evidence of a witness's bias can be compelling impeachment evidence, and for that reason "considerable latitude is allowed" to defense counsel in criminal cases "in the cross-examination of an adverse witness for the purpose of testing bias." State v. Brown , 303 S.C. 169, 171, 399 S.E.2d 593, 594 (1991). Our courts have followed the "general rule" that " ‘anything having a legitimate tendency to throw light on the

422 S.C. 183

accuracy, truthfulness, and sincerity of a witness may be shown and considered in determining the credit to be accorded his testimony,’ " so that " ‘on cross-examination, any fact may be elicited which tends to show interest, bias, or partiality’ of the witness." State v. Brewington , 267 S.C. 97, 101, 226 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1976) (quoting 98 C.J.S. Witnesses §§ 460, 560a ). "Rule 608(c) [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence] ‘preserves [this longstanding] South Carolina precedent.’ " State v. Sims , 348 S.C. 16, 25, 558 S.E.2d 518, 523 (2002) (quoting State v. Jones , 343 S.C. 562, 570, 541 S.E.2d 813, 817 (2001) and citing Brewington , 267 S.C. at 101, 226 S.E.2d at 250 ). See Rule 608(c), SCRE ("Bias, prejudice or any motive to misrepresent may be shown to impeach the witness either by examination of the witness or by evidence otherwise adduced.").

810 S.E.2d 841
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 practice notes
  • Sabb v. Warden of Broad River Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2603-BHH-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 2022
    ...only by mere speculation as to result.” Porter v. State, 368 S.C. at 385-86, 629 S.E.2d at 357, abrogated on other grounds by Smalls, 422 S.C. 174, 810 S.E.2d 836 (citing Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998)). Here, Counsel testified he went to the scene with hi......
  • Fortune v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 4, 2019
    ...this and other evidence is strong proof for the State, we disagree the evidence against Fortune was overwhelming. See Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 191, 810 S.E.2d 836, 845 (2018) (stating in the context of an ineffective 837 S.E.2d 44 assistance claim, "for the evidence to be ‘overwhelmi......
  • Pantovich v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-000280
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 7, 2019
    ...This Court affords deference to a PCR court's findings of fact, but reviews questions of law de novo. 427 S.C. 561 Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 180, 810 S.E.2d 836, 839 (2018). We will reverse if the PCR court's ruling is controlled by an error of law. Jordan v. State , 406 S.C. 443, 448......
  • State v. Washington, Appellate Case No. 2015-002668
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 8, 2018
    ...Further, there is no indication the trial court prohibited defense counsel from stating his arguments on the record. See Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 182 n.3, 810 S.E.2d 836, 840 n.3 (2018) ("When a conference takes place off the record, it is trial counsel's duty to put the substance of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 cases
  • Sabb v. Warden of Broad River Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2603-BHH-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 15, 2022
    ...only by mere speculation as to result.” Porter v. State, 368 S.C. at 385-86, 629 S.E.2d at 357, abrogated on other grounds by Smalls, 422 S.C. 174, 810 S.E.2d 836 (citing Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998)). Here, Counsel testified he went to the scene with hi......
  • Fortune v. State, Appellate Case No. 2016-002231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 4, 2019
    ...this and other evidence is strong proof for the State, we disagree the evidence against Fortune was overwhelming. See Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 191, 810 S.E.2d 836, 845 (2018) (stating in the context of an ineffective 837 S.E.2d 44 assistance claim, "for the evidence to be ‘overwhelmi......
  • Pantovich v. State, Appellate Case No. 2017-000280
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 7, 2019
    ...This Court affords deference to a PCR court's findings of fact, but reviews questions of law de novo. 427 S.C. 561 Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 180, 810 S.E.2d 836, 839 (2018). We will reverse if the PCR court's ruling is controlled by an error of law. Jordan v. State , 406 S.C. 443, 448......
  • State v. Washington, Appellate Case No. 2015-002668
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 8, 2018
    ...Further, there is no indication the trial court prohibited defense counsel from stating his arguments on the record. See Smalls v. State , 422 S.C. 174, 182 n.3, 810 S.E.2d 836, 840 n.3 (2018) ("When a conference takes place off the record, it is trial counsel's duty to put the substance of......
  • 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