Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
25 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Prince v. Stategreen2 sentences2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 | 5 | 7 |
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2025See Thompson, 355 S.C. at 262-63 , 584 S.E.2d at 135 ("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."); Bryant, 383 S.C. at 417 , 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding Bryant was adequately apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of appearing pro se from the evidence of her signature of the probation notice, her two prior appearances before the probation court, and having been represented by counsel for her other probation violations). 2025See Thompson, 355 S.C. at 262-63 , 584 S.E.2d at 135 ("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."); Bryant, 383 S.C. at 417 , 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding Bryant was adequately apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of appearing pro se from the evidence of her signature of the probation notice, her two prior appearances before the probation court, and having been represented by counsel for her other probation violations). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Cashgreen2 sentences2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 | 4 | 4 |
Wroten v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See 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 disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test [of the waiver analysis] is not the trial judge's advice but rather the defendant's understanding."); id. ("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."). 2026See 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 disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test [of the waiver analysis] is not the trial judge's advice but rather the defendant's understanding."); id. ("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."). | 3 | 9 |
Gardner v. Stategreen2 sentences2019In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial [court] addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this [c]ourt will look to the record to determine whether [the applicant] had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source."); Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407, 412-13 , 570 S.E.2d 184, 186-87 (2002) (listing factors a court may consider when determining the sufficiency of a defendant's background); id. at 1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). 412, 570 S.E.2d at 186 ("In a PCR action, if the record fails to de 2019In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial [court] addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this [c]ourt will look to the record to determine whether [the applicant] had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source."); Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407, 412-13 , 570 S.E.2d 184, 186-87 (2002) (listing factors a court may consider when determining the sufficiency of a defendant's background); id. at 1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). 412, 570 S.E.2d at 186 ("In a PCR action, if the record fails to de | 3 | 3 |
Hagy v. Pruittgreen2 sentences2018See **631 Hagy , 339 S.C. at 431 -32 , 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden , 295 S.C. 14 , 17, 366 S.E.2d 263 , 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf . 2018See **631 Hagy , 339 S.C. at 431 -32 , 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden , 295 S.C. 14 , 17, 366 S.E.2d 263 , 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf . | 3 | 3 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen2 sentences2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 2019In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial [court] addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this [c]ourt will look to the record to determine whether [the applicant] had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source."); Gardner v. State, 351 S.C. 407, 412-13 , 570 S.E.2d 184, 186-87 (2002) (listing factors a court may consider when determining the sufficiency of a defendant's background); id. at 1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). 412, 570 S.E.2d at 186 ("In a PCR action, if the record fails to de | 2 | 4 |
Greer v. McFaddengreen2 sentences2018See **631 Hagy , 339 S.C. at 431 -32 , 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden , 295 S.C. 14 , 17, 366 S.E.2d 263 , 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf . 2018See **631 Hagy , 339 S.C. at 431 -32 , 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden , 295 S.C. 14 , 17, 366 S.E.2d 263 , 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2025See Thompson, 355 S.C. at 262-63 , 584 S.E.2d at 135 ("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."); Bryant, 383 S.C. at 417 , 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding Bryant was adequately apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of appearing pro se from the evidence of her signature of the probation notice, her two prior appearances before the probation court, and having been represented by counsel for her other probation violations). 2025See Thompson, 355 S.C. at 262-63 , 584 S.E.2d at 135 ("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."); Bryant, 383 S.C. at 417 , 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding Bryant was adequately apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of appearing pro se from the evidence of her signature of the probation notice, her two prior appearances before the probation court, and having been represented by counsel for her other probation violations). | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCanngreen2 sentences2021McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 3 2017McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942)); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24 , 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel, Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right to counsel, and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 42 , 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Although a specific inquiry by the [trial court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but the accused's understanding." (italics omitted)); State v. Bryant, 38 | 2 | 2 |
Watts v. Stategreen2 sentences2019"While a specific inquiry by the [circuit court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the [circuit court]'s advice but rather the defendant's understanding." Watts, 347 S.C. at 402 , 556 S.E.2d at 370 (quoting Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294 , 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990)). 2019"While a specific inquiry by the [circuit court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the [circuit court]'s advice but rather the defendant's understanding." Watts, 347 S.C. at 402 , 556 S.E.2d at 370 (quoting Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294 , 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990)). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Robbinsgreen1 sentence2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo | 1 | 1 |
David A. Gray v. James Greergreen1 sentence2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo 2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo | 1 | 1 |
Tisdale v. Stategreen2 sentences2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo 2019As to Issue 2: Tisdale v. State, 357 S.C. 474, 476 , 594 S.E.2d 166, 167 (2004) ("A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of appellate counsel."); Bennett v. State, 383 S.C. 303, 309 , 680 S.E.2d 273, 276 (2009) ("Generally, in analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, this [c]ourt applies the Strickland[2] test just as it would when analyzing a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel."); id. ("Thus, . . . we ask 1) whether appellate counsel's performance was deficient, and 2) whether [the defendant] was prejudiced by appellate counsel's deficient perfo | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLaurengreen2 sentences2011"In the absence of a specific inquiry by the [circuit court] addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, the appellate court will look to the record to determine whether [a defendant] had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source." Id. at 494, 563 S.E.2d at 349 ; cf. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 ("The record affirmatively shows that Faretta was literate, competent, and understanding, and that he was voluntarily exercising his informed free will."). 2011"In the absence of a specific inquiry by the [circuit court] addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, the appellate court will look to the record to determine whether [a defendant] had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source." Id. at 494, 563 S.E.2d at 349 ; cf. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 ("The record affirmatively shows that Faretta was literate, competent, and understanding, and that he was voluntarily exercising his informed free will."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brewergreen2 sentences2003Gardner v. State , 351 S.C. 407, 411 , 570 S.E.2d 184, 186 (2002) (citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)). “It is the trial judge’s responsibility to determine whether there is a competent, intelligent waiver by the defendant.” Watts v. State , 347 S.C. 399, 402 , 556 S.E.2d 368, 370 (2001). “In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial judge addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this Court will look to the record to determine whether petitioner had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source.” P 2003Gardner v. State , 351 S.C. 407, 411 , 570 S.E.2d 184, 186 (2002) (citing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)). “It is the trial judge’s responsibility to determine whether there is a competent, intelligent waiver by the defendant.” Watts v. State , 347 S.C. 399, 402 , 556 S.E.2d 368, 370 (2001). “In the absence of a specific inquiry by the trial judge addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense as required by the second Faretta prong, this Court will look to the record to determine whether petitioner had sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source.” P | 1 | 1 |
Crowell v. Herringgreen1 sentence2002Bridwell, 306 S.C. at 519 , 413 S.E.2d at 31 ; Prince v. State, 301 S.C. at 424, 392 S.E.2d at 463 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Richard Scott Rhinehart
green
2 sentences2018See Hagy, 339 S.C. at 431–32, 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden, 295 S.C. 14, 17 , 366 S.E.2d 263, 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d 169 , 172–74 (2013) (finding an attorney's failure to disclose to the f 2018See Hagy, 339 S.C. at 431–32, 529 S.E.2d at 718 (holding allegations that fraudulent actions which induced a mother to sign a consent to adoption thereby waiving her right to notice and appearance in the adoption proceeding sufficiently alleged extrinsic fraud); Greer v. McFadden, 295 S.C. 14, 17 , 366 S.E.2d 263, 265 (Ct. App. 1988) (holding even if a pro se claim is not framed with expert precision, where the point is clear, the issue should be addressed); cf. Iowa Sup. Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Rhinehart, 827 N.W.2d 169 , 172–74 (2013) (finding an attorney's failure to disclose to the f | 3 | 2018–2018 |
State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2003State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , reheard, 91 Ariz. 293 , 371 P.2d 1020 (1962). 6 . 2003State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , reheard, 91 Ariz. 293 , 371 P.2d 1020 (1962). 6 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2003State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , reheard, 91 Ariz. 293 , 371 P.2d 1020 (1962). 6 . 2003State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , reheard, 91 Ariz. 293 , 371 P.2d 1020 (1962). 6 . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Bridwell v. State
green
2 sentences2002Bridwell, 306 S.C. at 519 , 413 S.E.2d at 31 ; Prince v. State, 301 S.C. at 424, 392 S.E.2d at 463 . 2002Bridwell, 306 S.C. at 519 , 413 S.E.2d at 31 ; Prince v. State, 301 S.C. at 424, 392 S.E.2d at 463 . | 2 | 1996–2002 |
Peter R. Fitzpatrick v. Louie L. Wainwright
green
1 sentence2019If 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." 301 S.C. 293 , 294, 391 S.E.2d 575 , 576 (1990) (citing Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright , 800 F.2d 1057 , 1065 (11th Cir. 1986) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Huckaby v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. “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.” Wroten v. State , 301 S.C. at 294 , 391 S.E.2d at 576 . “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. (citations omitted). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.