Stokes v. State, 23685
| Decision Date | 31 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23685,23685 |
| Citation | 419 S.E.2d 778,308 S.C. 546 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Pamela STOKES, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review Petitioner Pamela Stokes' application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Petitioner claims the PCR judge erred in finding that she received effective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm.
Shortly after 4:00 a.m. on July 17, 1987, petitioner ran to her neighbors' trailer and knocked on the door, shouting that her husband had shot himself. Neighbors returned with petitioner and found the husband lying on the floor in front of the couch with blood on his forehead. After a police investigation, petitioner was charged with murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.
Petitioner defended the charges by claiming that her husband committed suicide. A jury found her guilty of murder and we affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. State v. Stokes, Memo.Op. No. 90-MO-1071 (S.C.Sup.Ct. filed January 8, 1990).
Petitioner applied for post-conviction relief claiming, on several grounds, that trial counsel was ineffective. The PCR judge found that trial counsel performed competently. Petitioner appealed.
On appeal, petitioner presents the narrow issue of whether trial counsel's failure to call witnesses whose testimony could have supported her defense constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, we hold that it does not.
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must establish that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms, and that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989).
At the PCR hearing, trial counsel testified that he was aware of witnesses who were available to testify that petitioner's husband had engaged in two prior acts of suicidal gunplay. Counsel had also interviewed a third witness who was told by the husband during a discussion of marital problems a few hours before his death that "it would all be in the past as of tonight." Trial counsel testified that he chose not to use these witnesses because, in his judgment at the time, their testimony would not have been of value to petitioner's case. He stated that the witnesses vacillated when offering their recollections to him and presented no evidence that the husband actually committed suicide. Counsel further testified that petitioner instructed him not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 72, 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006). Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 610 S.E.2d 812 (2005); Stokes v. State, 308 S.C. 546, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992). Counsel's strategy will be reviewed under "an objective standard of reasonableness." Ingle v. State, 348 S.C. 467, 470, ......
-
Stone v. State
...562, 567-68, 689 S.E.2d 629, 632-33 (2010) ; Caprood v. State , 338 S.C. 103, 110, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) ; Stokes v. State , 308 S.C. 546, 548, 419 S.E.2d 778, 779 (1992). The necessary converse of this principle is that counsel's decision to employ a certain strategy will be deemed un......
-
Bowman v. State
...reason for employing certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel.") (citing Stokes v. State, 308 S.C. 546, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992) ); Whitehead v. State , 308 S.C. 119, 122, 417 S.E.2d 529, 531 (1992) ("Courts must be wary of second-guessing counsel's t......
-
Drayton v. Evatt
...a valid reason for employing certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel. Stokes v. State, --- S.C. ----, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992). Drayton first asserts that trial counsel was deficient for failing to present evidence of Drayton's future adaptability to......