Thompson v. State, 25115.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 531 S.E.2d 294,340 S.C. 112 |
| Docket Number | No. 25115.,25115. |
| Parties | Chavis THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 01 May 2000 |
340 S.C. 112
531 S.E.2d 294
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent
No. 25115.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted March 22, 2000.
Decided May 1, 2000.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, and Assistant Attorney General Matthew M. McGuire, all of Columbia, for respondent.
TOAL, Justice:
Chavis Thompson ("Thompson") appeals the post-conviction relief ("PCR") court's order denying his application for PCR based on ineffective assistance of counsel during his guilty plea. We reverse the PCR court, vacate Thompson's sentence, and remand for resentencing.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 23, 1993, Thompson killed Melvin Deshawn Williams by shooting him with a .45 caliber pistol. Thompson was indicted for murder in Charleston County in November 1994. On March 13, 1995, Thompson pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter pursuant to plea negotiations with the solicitor. At the trial, the solicitor requested the maximum 30 year sentence in violation of the plea agreement and Thompson's
On June 18, 1996, Thompson filed an application for PCR based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On August 12, 1997, Thompson testified at the evidentiary hearing that he decided to enter a guilty plea because he was under the assumption that: (1) he would receive a youthful offender sentence; (2) he would receive no more than a 20 year sentence; and (3) the solicitor was not going to make a sentencing request or recommendation. Thompson testified at the PCR hearing that he would not have pled guilty but for his attorney's advice as to the terms of the plea agreement.
Thompson's attorney testified at the PCR hearing that Thompson initially planned to go to trial because the codefendant was not willing to testify against him. Thompson decided to pursue a plea bargain only after the codefendant decided to testify against him. During the plea negotiations, the trial judge told the attorneys he would not consider a youthful offender sentence and he would impose a sentence of at least 20 years, but not the maximum of 30 years. Thompson's attorney testified that she explained to Thompson before the plea that he could expect at least a 20 year sentence, but that the trial judge stated he would not impose the maximum 30 year sentence. She also told Thompson that the solicitor was not going to make a specific sentence recommendation. According to Thompson's attorney, Thompson "went back and forth about whether he was going to plead at that point for quite a while and then decided he would go ahead."
The solicitor requested the maximum 30 year sentence and Thompson's attorney did not object. The PCR court found that the solicitor breached the plea agreement by requesting a maximum sentence. According to the PCR court, because Thompson's attorney advised him that he would receive at least a 20 year sentence, but less than the 30 year maximum, Thompson suffered no prejudice as a result of his attorney's failure to object. The PCR court held that the 25 year sentence was within the sentencing range under which Thompson agreed to plead guilty. On September 18, 1997, the
Did the PCR judge err in failing to find trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting when the solicitor recommended that Thompson be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment in violation of the negotiated plea agreement with the solicitor?
LAW/ANALYSIS
Thompson argues that trial counsel was ineffective for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davie v. State, 26608.
...it made with defendant and trial counsel failed to ensure that the State adhered to the original plea agreement); Thompson v. State, 340 S.C. 112, 116-17, 531 S.E.2d 294, 296-97 (2000) (concluding defendant established a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel where trial counsel failed......
-
Garner v. State, 2016-MO-005
...S.E.2d 164 (2008). In a PCR proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the allegations in the application. Thompson v. State, 340 S.C. 112, 115, 531 S.E.2d 294, 296 (2000). The United States Supreme Court has enunciated a two-pronged test to establish ineffective assistance of cou......
-
Garner v. State, Appellate Case No. 2014-001312
...S.E.2d 164 (2008). In a PCR proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the allegations in the application. Thompson v. State, 340 S.C. 112, 115, 531 S.E.2d 294, 296 (2000). The United States Supreme Court has enunciated a two-pronged test to establish ineffective assistance of cou......
-
Roscoe v. State, 25287.
...v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Jackson v. State, 342 S.C. 95, 535 S.E.2d 926 (2000); Thompson v. State, 340 S.C. 112, 531 S.E.2d 294 (2000); Ray ford v. State, 314 S.C. 46, 443 S.E.2d 805 (1994). Thus, an applicant must show both error and prejudice to win r......