Smith v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Smith v. State

179 S.E.2d 210, 255 S.C. 417, 1971 S.C. LEXIS 376

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedFebruary 11, 1971

Docket19171

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E.2d 210 (Smith 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

Smith v. State, 179 S.E.2d 210, 255 S.C. 417, 1971 S.C. LEXIS 376 (S.C. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Brailsford, Justice.

The petitioners, Willie J. Smith and James Weldon Smith, sought habeas corpus relief from sentences imposed [418]*418on them in Darlington County on April 9, 1968, upon their entry of pleas of guilty to rape, contending that their pleas had been coerced by fear that a jury trial might result in the imposition of the death penalty. The circuit court concluded that petitioners were entitled to relief as a matter of law under the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 88 S. Ct. 1209, 20 L. Ed. (2d) 138 (1968), and of this court, following that decision, in State v. Harper, 251 S. C. 379, 162 S. E. (2d) 712 (1968). Accordingly a new trial was granted, and the State has appealed.

The apparent impact of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jackson on the validity of confinements under guilty pleas which, under applicable statutes, had the effect of insulating the accused from the possibility of the death penalty, has been mitigated by subsequent decisions of that Court. There is no legal presumption that such a plea was coerced. Instead, the question in each case of claimed coercion is whether, under all the facts and circumstances, the guilty plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered. Sweet v. State, S. C., 178 S. E. (2d) 657, filed January 12, 1971, and authorities therein cited. It follows that the court erred in resolving this issue in petitioners’ favor as one of law.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Moss, C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Littlejohn, JJ., concur.

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

Brailsford, Justice.

The petitioners, Willie J. Smith and James Weldon Smith, sought habeas corpus relief from sentences imposed [418]*418on them in Darlington County on April 9, 1968, upon their entry of pleas of guilty to rape, contending that their pleas had been coerced by fear that a jury trial might result in the imposition of the death penalty. The circuit court concluded that petitioners were entitled to relief as a matter of law under the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 88 S. Ct. 1209, 20 L. Ed. (2d) 138 (1968), and of this court, following that decision, in State v. Harper, 251 S. C. 379, 162 S. E. (2d) 712 (1968). Accordingly a new trial was granted, and the State has appealed.

The apparent impact of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jackson on the validity of confinements under guilty pleas which, under applicable statutes, had the effect of insulating the accused from the possibility of the death penalty, has been mitigated by subsequent decisions of that Court. There is no legal presumption that such a plea was coerced. Instead, the question in each case of claimed coercion is whether, under all the facts and circumstances, the guilty plea was voluntarily and understandingly entered. Sweet v. State, S. C., 178 S. E. (2d) 657, filed January 12, 1971, and authorities therein cited. It follows that the court erred in resolving this issue in petitioners’ favor as one of law.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Moss, C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Littlejohn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E.2d 210, 255 S.C. 417, 1971 S.C. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-state-sc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack