Wroten v. State, No. 23202
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY |
| Citation | 391 S.E.2d 575,301 S.C. 293 |
| Parties | Ernest WROTEN, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 23202 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1990 |
Page 575
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decided April 30, 1990.
Page 576
Robert M. Dudek and Daniel T. Stacey, both of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Staff Atty. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
GREGORY, Chief Justice:
This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the [301 S.C. 294] denial of post-conviction relief (PCR). We reverse and remand.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. No direct appeal was taken. Petitioner filed a PCR application alleging his guilty plea was invalid because he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. After a hearing, petitioner's application was denied.
On appeal, petitioner contends the PCR judge erred in finding a valid waiver of counsel because the trial judge did not warn petitioner of the dangers of self-representation as mandated by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). See also State v. Bateman, 296 S.C. 367, 373 S.E.2d 470 (1988).
Faretta requires that a defendant "be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation so that the record will establish he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541, 45 L.Ed.2d at 582. While a specific inquiry by the trial judge expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial judge's advice but rather the defendant's understanding. Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir.1986). If the record demonstrates the defendant's decision to represent himself was made with an understanding of the risks of self-representation, the requirements of a voluntary waiver will be satisfied. Id. at 1065; see also United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105 (4th Cir.1988).
This analysis accords with our review in PCR matters to determine the adequacy of a guilty plea. The extent of inquiries made by the trial judge at the time of the plea is not conclusive. Harres v. Leeke, 282 S.C. 131, 318 S.E.2d 360 (1984). To determine whether a guilty plea was taken in accordance with constitutional standards, the Court will consider the entire record including facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hilton v. Stephon, Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB
...However, notably absent from the inquiry was any warning as required by Faretta v. California 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, Wroten v. State 301 S.C. 293[,] 391 S.E.2d 575, Sally v. State 410 S.E.2d 921[.]Faretta requires that a defendant "be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of sel......
-
State v. Thompson, No. 3659.
...background or was apprised of his rights by some other source." Prince, 301 S.C. at 424, 392 S.E.2d at 463; accord Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990). While a specific inquiry by the trial judge expressly addressing the 355 S.C. 263 disadvantages of a pro se defe......
-
The State v. Starnes, No. 26868.
...sentencing phase of his trial, as the trial court repeatedly questioned him about his decision to represent himself. See Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)) (recognizing that the ultimate test......
-
State v. McCall, Appellate Case No. 2015-001097
...are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth.") (citing State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 95 S.E.2d 857 (1957) ); Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. 293, 294–95, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (holding that an appellate court looks to the record as a whole to determine whether the defendant was suf......
-
Hilton v. Stephon, Case No. 2:18-cv-00962-DCC-MGB
...However, notably absent from the inquiry was any warning as required by Faretta v. California 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, Wroten v. State 301 S.C. 293[,] 391 S.E.2d 575, Sally v. State 410 S.E.2d 921[.]Faretta requires that a defendant "be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of sel......
-
State v. Thompson, No. 3659.
...background or was apprised of his rights by some other source." Prince, 301 S.C. at 424, 392 S.E.2d at 463; accord Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990). While a specific inquiry by the trial judge expressly addressing the 355 S.C. 263 disadvantages of a pro se defe......
-
The State v. Starnes, No. 26868.
...sentencing phase of his trial, as the trial court repeatedly questioned him about his decision to represent himself. See Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1065 (11th Cir.1986)) (recognizing that the ultimate test......
-
State v. McCall, Appellate Case No. 2015-001097
...are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth.") (citing State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 95 S.E.2d 857 (1957) ); Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. 293, 294–95, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) (holding that an appellate court looks to the record as a whole to determine whether the defendant was suf......