Harper v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Harper v. State

DecidedJanuary 23, 2006

Docket2006-MO-001

StatusUnpublished

This text of Harper v. State (Harper v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. State, (S.C. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Steven Harper, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Darlington County
John L. Breeden, Trial Judge
John M. Milling, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-001
Submitted January 5, 2006 Filed January 23, 2006

AFFIRMED

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the dismissal of Petitioners application for post-conviction relief (PCR). After careful review of the Appendix and briefs, the dismissal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Patterson v. State, 359 S.C. 115, 117, 597 S.E.2d 150, 151 (2004) (providing, To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR applicant must establish that trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); Hall v. Catoe, 360 S.C. 353, 359, 601 S.E.2d 335, 338 (2004) (providing that an appellate court must affirm the factual findings of the PCR court if there is any probative evidence in the record to support them); Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 426 S.E.2d 795 (1993) (affirming the dismissal of a PCR application because there was some probative evidence in the record to support the PCR courts finding that trial counsels performance was not deficient).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

Steven Harper, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Darlington County
John L. Breeden, Trial Judge
John M. Milling, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-001
Submitted January 5, 2006 Filed January 23, 2006

AFFIRMED

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the dismissal of Petitioners application for post-conviction relief (PCR). After careful review of the Appendix and briefs, the dismissal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Patterson v. State, 359 S.C. 115, 117, 597 S.E.2d 150, 151 (2004) (providing, To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR applicant must establish that trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); Hall v. Catoe, 360 S.C. 353, 359, 601 S.E.2d 335, 338 (2004) (providing that an appellate court must affirm the factual findings of the PCR court if there is any probative evidence in the record to support them); Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 426 S.E.2d 795 (1993) (affirming the dismissal of a PCR application because there was some probative evidence in the record to support the PCR courts finding that trial counsels performance was not deficient).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Harper v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-sc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack