Rice v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Rice v. State

DecidedOctober 15, 2014

Docket2014-UP-361

StatusUnpublished

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

Bluebook

Rice v. State, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Russell W. Rice, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-186254

Appeal From Greenville County C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Trial Court Judge

Appeal From Greenville County Robin B. Stilwell, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-361 Heard September 8, 2014 – Filed October 15, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Russell W. Rice appeals the post-conviction relief court's denial of his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Rice claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an independent investigation of the alleged murder weapon found in Rice's vehicle. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (stating to prove trial counsel was ineffective, the defendant must show (1) trial counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficiency prejudiced the defendant); Lounds v. State, 380 S.C. 454, 462, 670 S.E.2d 646, 650 (2008) (stating when trial counsel has a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, it is not deemed to be ineffective assistance of counsel); Frasier v. State, 306 S.C. 158, 160-61, 410 S.E.2d 572, 573 (1991) (holding trial counsel's failure to procure an expert witness was not unreasonable under prevailing professional norms where counsel vigorously cross-examined and attacked the accuracy of the evidence); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989) (holding the appropriate scope of review is that any evidence of probative value is sufficient to support the findings of the PCR court).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Russell W. Rice, Jr., Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-186254

Appeal From Greenville County C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Trial Court Judge

Appeal From Greenville County Robin B. Stilwell, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-361 Heard September 8, 2014 – Filed October 15, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Russell W. Rice appeals the post-conviction relief court's denial of his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Rice claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an independent investigation of the alleged murder weapon found in Rice's vehicle. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (stating to prove trial counsel was ineffective, the defendant must show (1) trial counsel's performance was deficient and (2) the deficiency prejudiced the defendant); Lounds v. State, 380 S.C. 454, 462, 670 S.E.2d 646, 650 (2008) (stating when trial counsel has a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, it is not deemed to be ineffective assistance of counsel); Frasier v. State, 306 S.C. 158, 160-61, 410 S.E.2d 572, 573 (1991) (holding trial counsel's failure to procure an expert witness was not unreasonable under prevailing professional norms where counsel vigorously cross-examined and attacked the accuracy of the evidence); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989) (holding the appropriate scope of review is that any evidence of probative value is sufficient to support the findings of the PCR court).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rice v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-state-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack