Stalk v. State
| Decision Date | 05 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 4298.,4298. |
| Citation | 652 S.E.2d 402 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | James STALK, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Respondent.
The post-conviction relief (PCR) court granted James Stalk's (Stalk) application for relief after finding Stalk's guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel's unreasonable conduct and failure to prepare. This court granted the State's petition to review the PCR court's decision. We reverse.
Stalk was indicted on one count of first-degree burglary and six counts of second degree burglary, four counts of grand larceny, and one count of aggravated resisting arrest. The first-degree burglary was reduced to second-degree. Stalk pled guilty to all charges. He was sentenced to (1) fifteen years imprisonment for the seven burglary charges, with one count served consecutively to the other six; (2) ten years for the grand larceny indictments, served consecutively to the burglary sentences; and (3) ten years for aggravated resisting arrest, served consecutively to the larceny sentences. In the aggregate, Stalk was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment.
Stalk agreed with and affirmed the State's recitation of the facts at the guilty plea proceeding. The State reported that officers investigating the burglary and larceny crimes identified Stalk as a suspect and visited his residence to question him. While there, the officers observed a number of items in Stalk's apartment that had been reported stolen. When they attempted to arrest Stalk he resisted and injured the officers in the struggle that ensued.
At the plea proceeding Stalk testified that he was thirty-two years old and had an eleventh grade education. He worked in construction and was not married. He admitted to treatment for drug abuse that he did not complete. Stalk denied any physical or emotional problems that might prevent him from understanding why he was in court. The plea court asked Stalk:
...
A. Guilty.
The plea court advised Stalk that by entering a guilty plea he waived or gave up his constitutional rights to (1) remain silent and not be compelled to testify against himself; (2) be tried by a jury of peers or equals to which the State would be required to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) confront and cross-examine any witnesses the State called to testify against him at a trial of his case. The court asked Stalk:
Stalk professed he was not threatened or forced to plead guilty or promised anything in exchange for pleading guilty. He confirmed he entered the plea of his own free will and accord. Stalk then stated he was guilty and he did commit the seven burglaries, four grand larcenies, and one resisting arrest as indicated in the factual record and in the indictments. The plea court questioned Stalk's counsel as follows:
Stalk declared he was satisfied with his counsel's representation in the following colloquy:
The court accepted Stalk's plea of guilty, finding it was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made, with the advice and counsel of a competent lawyer with whom Stalk said he was satisfied. Prior to sentencing, Stalk's counsel addressed the court:
[I]t is rare that anybody with near this number of pending charges would sit down with me and then later sit down with me and the solicitor and this is what I did. While Mr. Stalk certainly is a burglar, he is an honest burglar, he told them exactly what happened and has not tried to hide from the consequences of his actions. He had done some time in jail, got out, he was engaged, she was pregnant, he was unable to find work, and he resorted back to bad habits. He has been in jail a while now, he understands that he could have been facing as you indicated a hundred and fifty-five years, he could have been facing a potential life sentence on the original charges, and I indicated to him that any sort of negotiations less than that would certainly be to his advantage. He left it in my and the solicitor's hands to come up with this negotiation and he has cooperated in basically leaving it up to us and the State to come up with something less than the worse case scenario. We ask for mercy.
Stalk filed an application for post-conviction relief, which the PCR court granted.1 The State appealed and filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The matter was transferred to this court and the State's petition granted.
I. Did the PCR court err in finding Stalk's guilty plea was rendered involuntary by the ineffective assistance of his counsel?
II. Did the PCR court err in granting relief when Stalk presented no evidence of prejudice?
This court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 383, 629 S.E.2d 353, 356 (2006). On review, a PCR court's findings will be upheld if there is any evidence of probative value sufficient to support them. Id. (citing Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989)). However, where there is no evidence of probative value to support the findings of the PCR court, the appellate court will reverse. Bright v. State, 365 S.C. 355, 358, 618 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2005); Magazine v. State, 361 S.C. 610, 615, 606 S.E.2d 761, 763 (2004) (citing Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139, 144, 526 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2000)).
The essential allegation raised by Stalk involves the involuntary nature of his guilty plea due to the alleged lack of preparation and unreasonable conduct of his appointed counsel.
In the order granting Stalk's application for relief, the PCR court reasoned:
[Stalk] testified that he was coerced by his counsel who seemingly was unprepared. The applicant testified that his first meeting with his counsel, [ ], was in the presence of the prosecuting attorney, [ ]. The applicant further testified that his counsel never met with him to discuss his case, never discussed the pending charges, and never discussed possible defenses. Despite having pleaded guilty and answering the Court in the affirmative at this guilty plea, the applicant testified that he understood that the sentences would all run concurrently. The applicant further testified that he was coerced into pleading guilty because he had no confidence in his lawyer. He stated that he would probably not have pled guilty had his lawyer been prepared.
Upon cross-examination, Mr. Stalk insisted that [his attorney] failed to call the co-defendant. He also confirmed previous testimony that [his attorney] had only met with him once prior to entering the plea and that the meeting took place in the presence of the prosecuting attorney. As such [Stalk] was unduly coerced into the plea agreement and would have otherwise insisted on going to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick v. Warden
...that he was pressured into entering a guilty plea; therefore the transcript has refuted this allegation. SeeStalk v. State, 375 S.C. 289, 300, 652 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 2007); see alsoRayford v. State, 314 S.C. 46, 48-49, 443 S.E.2d 805, 806 (1994) (where transcript of guilty plea proce......
-
Irby v. Warden, C/A No.: 1:14-3583-RMG-SVH
...transcript alone, it is clear the Applicant entered knowing and voluntary guilty pleas to these charges. SeeStalk v. State, 375 S.C. 289, 300, 652 S.E.2d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 2007).This Court finds the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proving plea counsel misadvised him about parole eli......
-
Boston v. Reynolds
...was pressured into entering a guilty plea; therefore the transcript 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 ......
- Stalk v. State