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.
7 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frett v. Stategreen2 sentences2006We again recognize that this type of “consistently inept form of lawyer conduct [is not] acceptable in this state, nor will we employ a prejudice analysis, for ‘[defense] counsel’s ineffectiveness [is] so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.’ ” Nance, 358 S.C. at 490 , 596 S.E.2d at 67 . (citing Frett v. State, 298 S.C. 54, 56 , 378 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1988)). 2006We again recognize that this type of “consistently inept form of lawyer conduct [is not] acceptable in this state, nor will we employ a prejudice analysis, for ‘[defense] counsel’s ineffectiveness [is] so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.’ ” Nance, 358 S.C. at 490 , 596 S.E.2d at 67 . (citing Frett v. State, 298 S.C. 54, 56 , 378 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1988)). | 2 | 3 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2008Although an applicant “must ordinarily show actual prejudice, he may be relieved of that burden if counsel’s ineffectiveness is so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.” Green v. State, 351 S.C. 184, 196 , 569 S.E.2d 318, 324 (2002). 2008Although an applicant “must ordinarily show actual prejudice, he may be relieved of that burden if counsel’s ineffectiveness is so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.” Green v. State, 351 S.C. 184, 196 , 569 S.E.2d 318, 324 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
Weaver v. Massachusettsgreen1 sentence2025Importantly, this holding is not in conflict with Weaver, which reinforced existing jurisprudence holding that "in the case of a structural error where there is an objection at trial and the issue is raised on direct appeal, the defendant generally is entitled to 'automatic reversal' regardless of the error's actual 'effect on the outcome.'" 582 U.S. at 299 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
In re Allmongreen2 sentences2025Initially, we acknowledge Rivera's holding that "a trial court's improper refusal to permit a defendant to testify in his own defense . . . is not amenable to harmless-error analysis" and "requires reversal without a particularized prejudice inquiry." 402 S.C. at 247 , 741 S.E.2d at 706 (emphasis added). 2025However, our supreme court determined such an "error is not amenable to harmless-error analysis and requires reversal without a particularized prejudice inquiry." Id. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopezgreen2 sentences2013See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 (“We have little trouble concluding that erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as structural error.’ ... 2013See Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150 , 126 S.Ct. 2557 (“We have little trouble concluding that erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, “with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as structural error.’ ... | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rivera
green
1 sentence2025Initially, we acknowledge Rivera's holding that "a trial court's improper refusal to permit a defendant to testify in his own defense . . . is not amenable to harmless-error analysis" and "requires reversal without a particularized prejudice inquiry." 402 S.C. at 247 , 741 S.E.2d at 706 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nance v. Frederick
neutral
2 sentences2006We again recognize that this type of “consistently inept form of lawyer conduct [is not] acceptable in this state, nor will we employ a prejudice analysis, for ‘[defense] counsel’s ineffectiveness [is] so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.’ ” Nance, 358 S.C. at 490 , 596 S.E.2d at 67 . (citing Frett v. State, 298 S.C. 54, 56 , 378 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1988)). 2006We again recognize that this type of “consistently inept form of lawyer conduct [is not] acceptable in this state, nor will we employ a prejudice analysis, for ‘[defense] counsel’s ineffectiveness [is] so pervasive as to render a particularized prejudice inquiry unnecessary.’ ” Nance, 358 S.C. at 490 , 596 S.E.2d at 67 . (citing Frett v. State, 298 S.C. 54, 56 , 378 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1988)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.