PCR hearing in South Carolina

2023See Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554, 558 , 640 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2007) ("In determining guilty plea issues, it is proper to consider the guilty plea transcript as well as evidence at the PCR hearing.").

2023See Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554, 558 , 640 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2007) ("In determining guilty plea issues, it is proper to consider the guilty plea transcript as well as evidence at the PCR hearing.").

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2016“A PCR applicant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to call a favorable witness to testify at trial if that witness does not later testify at the PCR hearing or otherwise offer testimony within the rules of evidence.” Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 369 , 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005).

2016“A PCR applicant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to call a favorable witness to testify at trial if that witness does not later testify at the PCR hearing or otherwise offer testimony within the rules of evidence.” Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 369 , 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005).

2023"Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim." Id. at 700 . "[A]n issue that was raised on direct appeal but found to be unpreserved may be raised in the context of a PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel." McHam v. State, 404 S.C. 465, 475 , 746 S.E.2d 41, 47 (2013), abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174 , 181 n.2, 810 S.E.2d 836 , 839 n.2 (2018).

2023"Failure to make the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats the ineffectiveness claim." Id. at 700 . "[A]n issue that was raised on direct appeal but found to be unpreserved may be raised in the context of a PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel." McHam v. State, 404 S.C. 465, 475 , 746 S.E.2d 41, 47 (2013), abrogated on other grounds by Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174 , 181 n.2, 810 S.E.2d 836 , 839 n.2 (2018).

2022See Bannister v. State, 333 S.C. 298, 303 , 509 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1998) ("[A] PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice from the witness' failure to testify at trial." (emphasis added)).

2022See Bannister v. State, 333 S.C. 298, 303 , 509 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1998) ("[A] PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice from the witness' failure to testify at trial." (emphasis added)).

2012See Roddy, 339 S.C. at 33-35 , 528 S.E.2d at 420-21 (applying any evidence standard and reversing PCR court’s grant of relief based in part on evidence from PCR hearing); Brannon v. State, 345 S.C. 437, 439 , 548 S.E.2d 866, 867 (2001) (applying any evidence standard and remanding for PCR court to hold evidentiary hearing on issue whether withdrawal of PCR application was knowing and voluntary); Spoone, 379 S.C. 138 , 665 S.E.2d 605 (affirming PCR court’s determination that waiver of appellate rights was knowing and voluntary despite lack of specific questioning by plea court on defendant’s un

2012See Roddy, 339 S.C. at 33-35 , 528 S.E.2d at 420-21 (applying any evidence standard and reversing PCR court’s grant of relief based in part on evidence from PCR hearing); Brannon v. State, 345 S.C. 437, 439 , 548 S.E.2d 866, 867 (2001) (applying any evidence standard and remanding for PCR court to hold evidentiary hearing on issue whether withdrawal of PCR application was knowing and voluntary); Spoone, 379 S.C. 138 , 665 S.E.2d 605 (affirming PCR court’s determination that waiver of appellate rights was knowing and voluntary despite lack of specific questioning by plea court on defendant’s un

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2007See Harres v. Leeke , 282 S.C. 131, 133 , 318 S.E.2d 360, 361 (1984) (review of a PCR action arising from a guilty plea requires an examination of the records of both the plea proceeding and the PCR hearing).

2007See Harres v. Leeke , 282 S.C. 131, 133 , 318 S.E.2d 360, 361 (1984) (review of a PCR action arising from a guilty plea requires an examination of the records of both the plea proceeding and the PCR hearing).

2021At the PCR hearing, trial counsel noted he did not have a trial strategy for failing to object to various portions of the hearsay testimony.3 "The presumption of adequate representation based on a valid trial strategy disappears when trial counsel acknowledged there was no trial strategy in mind when he failed to object to the improper hearsay and bolstering testimony." Smith, 86 S.C. at 568, 689 S.E.2d at 633 .

2021At the PCR hearing, trial counsel noted he did not have a trial strategy for failing to object to various portions of the hearsay testimony.3 "The presumption of adequate representation based on a valid trial strategy disappears when trial counsel acknowledged there was no trial strategy in mind when he failed to object to the improper hearsay and bolstering testimony." Smith, 86 S.C. at 568, 689 S.E.2d at 633 .

2021In Bannister, our supreme court explained it has "repeatedly held a PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice with the witnesses' failure to testify at trial." Id. at 303 , 509 S.E.2d at 809 ; see e.g., Pauling v. State, 331 S.C. 606 , 503 S.E.2d 468 (1998) (holding an applicant established prejudice where nurse's notes presented at PCR hearing corroborated lack of penetration in sexual assault case); Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496 , 458 S.E.2d 538 (

2021In Bannister, our supreme court explained it has "repeatedly held a PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice with the witnesses' failure to testify at trial." Id. at 303 , 509 S.E.2d at 809 ; see e.g., Pauling v. State, 331 S.C. 606 , 503 S.E.2d 468 (1998) (holding an applicant established prejudice where nurse's notes presented at PCR hearing corroborated lack of penetration in sexual assault case); Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496 , 458 S.E.2d 538 (

2009See Porter v. State , 368 S.C. 378, 386 , 629 S.E.2d 353, 358 (2006) ("Mere speculation of what a witness'[s] testimony may be is insufficient to satisfy the burden of showing prejudice in a petition for PCR."); Dempsey v. State , 363 S.C. 365, 369 , 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005) (holding a PCR applicant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to call a favorable witness to testify at trial if that witness does not later testify at the PCR hearing or otherwise offer testimony within the rules of evidence); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (explaining in order to

2009See Porter v. State , 368 S.C. 378, 386 , 629 S.E.2d 353, 358 (2006) ("Mere speculation of what a witness'[s] testimony may be is insufficient to satisfy the burden of showing prejudice in a petition for PCR."); Dempsey v. State , 363 S.C. 365, 369 , 610 S.E.2d 812, 814 (2005) (holding a PCR applicant cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to call a favorable witness to testify at trial if that witness does not later testify at the PCR hearing or otherwise offer testimony within the rules of evidence); Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (explaining in order to

2026LAW/ANALYSIS "The applicant in a PCR hearing bears the burden of establishing he is entitled to relief." Goins v. State, 397 S.C. 568, 573 , 726 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2012).

2026LAW/ANALYSIS "The applicant in a PCR hearing bears the burden of establishing he is entitled to relief." Goins v. State, 397 S.C. 568, 573 , 726 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2012).

2025Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Todd, 264 S.C. 136, 139 , 213 S.E.2d 99, 100 (1975) ("[T]he failure of a defendant to object to the charge as made or to request additional instructions, when the opportunity to do so is afforded, constitutes a waiver of any right to complain of errors in the charge."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21 , 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] to preserve an issue for appellate review."); McHam v

2025Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Todd, 264 S.C. 136, 139 , 213 S.E.2d 99, 100 (1975) ("[T]he failure of a defendant to object to the charge as made or to request additional instructions, when the opportunity to do so is afforded, constitutes a waiver of any right to complain of errors in the charge."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21 , 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] to preserve an issue for appellate review."); McHam v

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2022See Jackson v. State, 329 S.C. 345 , 350–51, 495 S.E.2d 768 , 770–71 (1998) (finding petitioner failed to show prejudice from counsel's failure to call his codefendant as a witness at trial because although petitioner presented the codefendant's statement at the PCR hearing, the same information was presented at trial); Edwards, 392 S.C. at 459 , 710 S.E.2d at 66 (noting the proffered testimony at the PCR hearing was not evidence that would have exonerated the petitioner); cf. Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 498 , 458 S.E.2d 538, 540 (1995) (concluding trial counsel's failure to contact two wit

2018We affirmed, citing Solomon v. State , 313 S.C. 526 , 443 S.E.2d 540 (1994), for the proposition that an appellate court's deference to a PCR judge's credibility findings is so great that this Court is required to uphold the PCR judge's determination " even **26 where testimony at [the] PCR hearing was unequivocally contradicted by the trial record ." Hyman , 397 S.C. at 45 , 723 S.E.2d at 380 (emphasis added).

2018We affirmed, citing Solomon v. State , 313 S.C. 526 , 443 S.E.2d 540 (1994), for the proposition that an appellate court's deference to a PCR judge's credibility findings is so great that this Court is required to uphold the PCR judge's determination " even **26 where testimony at [the] PCR hearing was unequivocally contradicted by the trial record ." Hyman , 397 S.C. at 45 , 723 S.E.2d at 380 (emphasis added).

2026Holden v. State, 393 S.C. 565, 573 , 713 S.E.2d 611, 615 (2011) (quoting Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33 , 528 S.E.2d 418, 420 (2000)), abrogated on other grounds by, Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018).

2026Holden v. State, 393 S.C. 565, 573 , 713 S.E.2d 611, 615 (2011) (quoting Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33 , 528 S.E.2d 418, 420 (2000)), abrogated on other grounds by, Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174 , 810 S.E.2d 836 (2018).

2015The PCR court stated, “A doctor could not state with certainty the exact cause of the injuries discovered and the determination of the cause of the injury was a question for the jury.” Further, the PCR court stated, “Dr. Thompson’s testimony did not make it any less likely that [Reeves] had committed the crime, in fact, the substance of his testimony at the PCR hearing only confirmed that the cause of the injuries was unclear.” Accordingly, the PCR court denied and dismissed this ineffective assistance of counsel claim. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reaso

2015The PCR court stated, “A doctor could not state with certainty the exact cause of the injuries discovered and the determination of the cause of the injury was a question for the jury.” Further, the PCR court stated, “Dr. Thompson’s testimony did not make it any less likely that [Reeves] had committed the crime, in fact, the substance of his testimony at the PCR hearing only confirmed that the cause of the injuries was unclear.” Accordingly, the PCR court denied and dismissed this ineffective assistance of counsel claim. “[C]ounsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reaso

2017Nevertheless, we affirmed the denial of PCR, stating, “Since this issue was neither raised at the PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court, it is procedurally barred.” 309 S.C. at 409 , 424 S.E.2d at 478 .

2017Nevertheless, we affirmed the denial of PCR, stating, “Since this issue was neither raised at the PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court, it is procedurally barred.” 309 S.C. at 409 , 424 S.E.2d at 478 .

2026"In addressing the adequacy of a PCR applicant's guilty plea, it is proper to consider both the guilty plea transcript and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing." Sellner, 416 S.C. at 611 , 787 S.E.2d at 527 .

2026"In addressing the adequacy of a PCR applicant's guilty plea, it is proper to consider both the guilty plea transcript and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing." Sellner, 416 S.C. at 611 , 787 S.E.2d at 527 .

2015See Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 589 , 518 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1999) (stating if matters of credibility are involved, this court gives deference to the PCR court’s findings because this court lacks the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses); see also Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012) (stating the appellate court’s deference to the PCR court’s credibility findings is so great that it required the court to uphold the PCR court’s determination even when the trial record unequivocally contradicted the testimony at the PCR hearing).

2015See Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 589 , 518 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1999) (stating if matters of credibility are involved, this court gives deference to the PCR court’s findings because this court lacks the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses); see also Hyman v. State, 397 S.C. 35, 45 , 723 S.E.2d 375, 380 (2012) (stating the appellate court’s deference to the PCR court’s credibility findings is so great that it required the court to uphold the PCR court’s determination even when the trial record unequivocally contradicted the testimony at the PCR hearing).

2016Id. at 573, 713 S.E.2d at 615 (citing Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554, 558 , 640 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2007)). “[Tjhere is a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making all significant decisions in the case.” Edwards v. State, 392 S.C. 449, 456 , 710 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2011).

2016Id. at 573, 713 S.E.2d at 615 (citing Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554, 558 , 640 S.E.2d 884, 886 (2007)). “[Tjhere is a strong presumption that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making all significant decisions in the case.” Edwards v. State, 392 S.C. 449, 456 , 710 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2011).

2012Further, in the absence of any challenge to the integrity of the plea transcript, the PCR court committed an error of law in ruling that the sentencing sheets took precedence over the plea transcript because "a sentencing sheet is essentially a contract between the applicant, the applicant's trial counsel, and the court." See Anderson v. State , 342 S.C. 54, 57 , 535 S.E.2d 649, 650 (2000) ("When determining issues relating to guilty pleas, the Court will consider the entire record , including the transcript of the guilty plea, and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing." (emphasis added)).

2012Further, in the absence of any challenge to the integrity of the plea transcript, the PCR court committed an error of law in ruling that the sentencing sheets took precedence over the plea transcript because "a sentencing sheet is essentially a contract between the applicant, the applicant's trial counsel, and the court." See Anderson v. State , 342 S.C. 54, 57 , 535 S.E.2d 649, 650 (2000) ("When determining issues relating to guilty pleas, the Court will consider the entire record , including the transcript of the guilty plea, and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing." (emphasis added)).

2025Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Todd, 264 S.C. 136, 139 , 213 S.E.2d 99, 100 (1975) ("[T]he failure of a defendant to object to the charge as made or to request additional instructions, when the opportunity to do so is afforded, constitutes a waiver of any right to complain of errors in the charge."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21 , 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] to preserve an issue for appellate review."); McHam v

2025Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection."); State v. Todd, 264 S.C. 136, 139 , 213 S.E.2d 99, 100 (1975) ("[T]he failure of a defendant to object to the charge as made or to request additional instructions, when the opportunity to do so is afforded, constitutes a waiver of any right to complain of errors in the charge."); State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415, 420-21 , 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial [court] to preserve an issue for appellate review."); McHam v

2005See Plyler v. State, 309 S.C. 408 , 424 *504 S.E.2d 477 (1992) (issue or argument which is neither raised at PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is procedurally barred from appellate review); Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501 , 299 S.E.2d 330 (1983) (same).

2005See Plyler v. State, 309 S.C. 408 , 424 *504 S.E.2d 477 (1992) (issue or argument which is neither raised at PCR hearing nor ruled upon by the PCR court is procedurally barred from appellate review); Hyman v. State, 278 S.C. 501 , 299 S.E.2d 330 (1983) (same).

2018We affirmed, citing Solomon v. State , 313 S.C. 526 , 443 S.E.2d 540 (1994), for the proposition that an appellate court's deference to a PCR judge's credibility findings is so great that this Court is required to uphold the PCR judge's determination " even **26 where testimony at [the] PCR hearing was unequivocally contradicted by the trial record ." Hyman , 397 S.C. at 45 , 723 S.E.2d at 380 (emphasis added).

2018We affirmed, citing Solomon v. State , 313 S.C. 526 , 443 S.E.2d 540 (1994), for the proposition that an appellate court's deference to a PCR judge's credibility findings is so great that this Court is required to uphold the PCR judge's determination " even **26 where testimony at [the] PCR hearing was unequivocally contradicted by the trial record ." Hyman , 397 S.C. at 45 , 723 S.E.2d at 380 (emphasis added).

2011In Jeter, 308 S.C. at 233 , 417 S.E.2d at 596 , the court found “[t]he evidence addressed at the PCR hearing was insufficient to show deficient performance on the part of [plea] counsel.” Plea counsel discussed petitioner’s case and his options with petitioner on several occasions prior to his plea.

2011In Jeter, 308 S.C. at 233 , 417 S.E.2d at 596 , the court found “[t]he evidence addressed at the PCR hearing was insufficient to show deficient performance on the part of [plea] counsel.” Plea counsel discussed petitioner’s case and his options with petitioner on several occasions prior to his plea.

2026See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) ("[I]n order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the [petitioner] must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."); Palacio v. State, 333 S.C. 506, 512-13 , 511 S.E.2d 62, 65-66 (1999) (holding the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulted from trial counsel's failure to obtain all discovery documents before trial because "the contents of these documents were never revealed at the PCR hearing," resulting in no "evidence of p

2026See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985) ("[I]n order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the [petitioner] must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."); Palacio v. State, 333 S.C. 506, 512-13 , 511 S.E.2d 62, 65-66 (1999) (holding the applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulted from trial counsel's failure to obtain all discovery documents before trial because "the contents of these documents were never revealed at the PCR hearing," resulting in no "evidence of p

2019"A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). "[A] PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice from the witness' failure to testify at trial." Bannister v. State, 333 S.C. 298, 303 , 509 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1998).

2019"A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Id. (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984)). "[A] PCR applicant must produce the testimony of a favorable witness or otherwise offer the testimony in accordance with the rules of evidence at the PCR hearing in order to establish prejudice from the witness' failure to testify at trial." Bannister v. State, 333 S.C. 298, 303 , 509 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1998).

2017Simpson is similar to this case in that the PCR court refused to rule on a PCR claim “because Simpson did not specifically raise it in his PCR application.” 367 S.C. at 599 , 627 S.E.2d at 707 .

2017Simpson is similar to this case in that the PCR court refused to rule on a PCR claim “because Simpson did not specifically raise it in his PCR application.” 367 S.C. at 599 , 627 S.E.2d at 707 .