Washington v. State, No. 24522
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TOAL; FINNEY; BURNETT; BURNETT |
| Citation | 478 S.E.2d 833,324 S.C. 232 |
| Parties | Daniel Edward WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
| Decision Date | 12 November 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24522 |
Page 833
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Decided Nov. 12, 1996.
Page 834
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General J. Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General Teresa Nesbitt Cosby and Assistant Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, Columbia, for Petitioner.
Assistant Appellate Defender Lesley M. Coggiola, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for Respondent.
TOAL, Justice:
This Court granted certiorari to review the lower court's grant of Post-Conviction Relief ("PCR") to Daniel Edward Washington. We affirm.
FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Washington was indicted and tried for trafficking in cocaine. He was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment and fined $200,000. He filed a notice of intent to appeal. This Court dismissed the appeal due to Washington's failure to file an initial brief and designated matter to be included on appeal.
Washington filed an application for PCR on July 15, 1991, raising a number of issues, including one relating to the State's misconduct in connection with a plea agreement. The PCR court, Judge Bristow, issued an order on April 21, 1992, finding that Washington did not waive his right to a direct appeal and should be afforded an opportunity to appeal pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). As to the State's misconduct, the court found that the State failed to adequately explain to the jury the State's relationship with one of its witnesses. The court's order stated that "this is a matter that can be addressed on direct appeal and does not require a reversal of the jury verdict by this Court."
After the PCR court issued its April 21, 1992 order, Washington petitioned for writ of certiorari, raising three issues: (1) the judge erred by failing to find ineffective assistance of counsel at trial; (2) the judge erred by failing to reverse the conviction based on the State's misconduct; and (3) trial counsel failed to properly perfect Washington's appeal, thereby denying him the opportunity to appeal his conviction. This Court denied certiorari, in a memorandum opinion, as to issues 1 and 2. We granted certiorari on issue number 3, reasoning that there was sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that Washington did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal. The appeal was affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410, 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised to or ruled upon by trial judge). The merits of the appeal were not reached.
On July 28, 1993, Washington filed another application for PCR, arguing: (1) ineffective assistance of PCR counsel and (2) error by the PCR judge in ruling that the issue of the State's misconduct could be heard by an appellate court. The matter was again heard by Judge Bristow. At the November 7, 1994 hearing, Washington moved to amend the court's April 21, 1992 order for what "amount[ed] to clerical errors." He argued the court found in the 1991 PCR hearing that in the event the issue of the State's misconduct is not preserved on direct appeal, then Washington would be entitled to a new trial. The court treated the motion as a motion to alter or amend judgment and agreed with Washington. The court amended the April 21, 1992 order to grant Washington a new trial.
The State has petitioned for writ of certiorari, which this Court has granted.
LAW/ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court must affirm the PCR court's findings if they are supported by any competent evidence of probative value in the record. Webb v. State, 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E.2d 839 (1984). Here, the PCR court found that Washington was entitled to a new trial because of the State's misconduct in failing to fully disclose the nature of its relationship with a witness. The United States Supreme Court in Giglio
Page 835
v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) stated that deliberate deception of a court and jurors...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grinols v. State, No. A-7349.
...relief and raise claims that would otherwise be barred because they could have been raised on appeal); Washington v. State, 324 S.C. 232, 478 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1996) (the rules barring successive petitions for post-conviction relief mus be relaxed when the defendant did not receive due proce......
-
Matthews v. Evatt, No. 96-5
...did not have direct review of a claim he brought in his first and second PCR applications. Washington v. State, --- S.C. ----, 478 S.E.2d 833, 834-35 (1996). Page 916 The South Carolina case law discussed above demonstrates that, absent sufficient reason for not raising a claim in a first P......
-
Robertson v. State, Appellate Case No. 2012-205909
..."sufficient reason" why the new grounds for relief he asserts were not raised, or were not raised properly. But see Washington v. State , 324 S.C. 232, 478 S.E.2d 833 (1996) (permitting a successive application where multiple procedural irregularities prohibited the applicant from receiving......
-
Bryant v. Stirling, 9:16-CV-1423-DCN-MHC
...(allowing a successive PCR application where PCR counsel was not statutorily qualified to represent the applicant); Washington v. State, 478 S.E.2d 833, 835 (permitting a successive PCR application where multiple procedural irregularities, including the denial of a direct appeal, denied app......
-
Grinols v. State, No. A-7349.
...relief and raise claims that would otherwise be barred because they could have been raised on appeal); Washington v. State, 324 S.C. 232, 478 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1996) (the rules barring successive petitions for post-conviction relief mus be relaxed when the defendant did not receive due proce......
-
Matthews v. Evatt, No. 96-5
...did not have direct review of a claim he brought in his first and second PCR applications. Washington v. State, --- S.C. ----, 478 S.E.2d 833, 834-35 (1996). Page 916 The South Carolina case law discussed above demonstrates that, absent sufficient reason for not raising a claim in a first P......
-
Robertson v. State, Appellate Case No. 2012-205909
..."sufficient reason" why the new grounds for relief he asserts were not raised, or were not raised properly. But see Washington v. State , 324 S.C. 232, 478 S.E.2d 833 (1996) (permitting a successive application where multiple procedural irregularities prohibited the applicant from receiving......
-
Bryant v. Stirling, 9:16-CV-1423-DCN-MHC
...(allowing a successive PCR application where PCR counsel was not statutorily qualified to represent the applicant); Washington v. State, 478 S.E.2d 833, 835 (permitting a successive PCR application where multiple procedural irregularities, including the denial of a direct appeal, denied app......