Wright v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Wright v. State

DecidedOctober 23, 2006

Docket2006-MO-031

StatusUnpublished

This text of Wright v. State (Wright 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

Wright 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

Rocksell Wright, Respondent

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-031
Submitted September 20, 2006 Filed October 23, 2006

REVERSED

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, and Robert Matthew Sneed, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit courts grant of post-conviction relief to respondent, Rocksell Wright. We now reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: Scott v. State, 334 S.C. 248, 513 S.E.2d 100 (1999) (a PCR applicant must show both error and prejudice to obtain relief); Roscoe v. State, 345 S.C. 16, 546 S.E.2d 417 (2001) (to be entitled to relief on PCR, the applicant must demonstrate prejudice); Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 480 S.E.2d 733 (1997) (to prove prejudice, applicant must show there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different); Kibler v. State, 267 S.C. 250, 227 S.E.2d 199 (1976) (the Court will not speculate concerning what might have occurred if counsel had conducted further investigation); Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996) (where there is no probative evidence to support the PCR courts findings, the findings should not be upheld).

REVERSED.

TOAL, C.J., WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. MOORE, 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

Rocksell Wright, Respondent

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Greenville County
Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-031
Submitted September 20, 2006 Filed October 23, 2006

REVERSED

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, and Robert Matthew Sneed, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit courts grant of post-conviction relief to respondent, Rocksell Wright. We now reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: Scott v. State, 334 S.C. 248, 513 S.E.2d 100 (1999) (a PCR applicant must show both error and prejudice to obtain relief); Roscoe v. State, 345 S.C. 16, 546 S.E.2d 417 (2001) (to be entitled to relief on PCR, the applicant must demonstrate prejudice); Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 480 S.E.2d 733 (1997) (to prove prejudice, applicant must show there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different); Kibler v. State, 267 S.C. 250, 227 S.E.2d 199 (1976) (the Court will not speculate concerning what might have occurred if counsel had conducted further investigation); Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996) (where there is no probative evidence to support the PCR courts findings, the findings should not be upheld).

REVERSED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack