Title: Gary Moorehead v. State

State: south-carolina

Issuer: South Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

Davis Adv. Sh. No. 3 S.E. 2d THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Gary Moorehead, Respondent, v. State of South Carolina, Petitioner. Appeal From Horry County Daniel E. Martin, Sr., Judge ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI Opinion No. 24742 Submitted November 19, 1997 - Filed January 12, 1998 REVERSED MOORE, A.J.: On advice of counsel, respondent pled guilty to two separate charges arising from different facts: criminal sexual conduct (CSC) third degree and unlawful use of telephone. No direct appeal was p. 41 taken. We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the grant of post-conviction relief (PCR) and now reverse. FACTS The following facts were presented at the plea hearing by the assistant solicitor: DISCUSSION 1) Sentencing advice on CSC charge Respondent's sentence on the CSC charge was ten years, suspended after seven, and five years probation. At the PCR hearing, respondent testified he pled guilty to the CSC charge on counsel's advice that he p. 42 would receive only probation. He claimed he answered the trial judge's questions regarding the plea affirmatively because Counsel, on the other hand, testified he never promised respondent a straight probationary sentence although they did discuss probation to follow his active jail time as part of the plea negotiations. The PCR judge found counsel was ineffective for advising respondent he would receive only probation and that respondent would not have pled guilty but for this erroneous advice. This was error. When considering an allegation on PCR that a guilty plea was based on inaccurate advice of counsel, the transcript of the guilty plea hearing will be considered to determine whether any possible error by counsel was cured by the information conveyed at the plea hearing. Wolfe v. State, __S.C.__ 485 S.E.2d 36-1 (1997). At the plea hearing, the trial judge asked respondent if he understood that the possible sentence for the CSC charge was ten years and respondent answered that he did. The trial judge also summarized the plea agreement on the record before accepting respondent's plea and respondent answered that he understood it. Even if trial counsel erroneously informed respondent that his sentence would be probationary, any misconception was cured at the plea hearing. Further, respondent's explanation that he answered the trial judge affirmatively on counsel's alleged advice that the questions were meaningless does not support the grant of PCR. Id. (defendant's claim he understood from counsel that the trial ) judge's questions at the guilty plea were only a "polite fiction" held not an invitation to answer untruthfully) . We conclude there is no evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that respondent received ineffective assistance of counsel on this ground. 2) Failure to investigate Respondent claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to independently investigate. He claimed counsel failed to interview p. 43 exculpatory witnesses or the two victims and did not await the results of SLED DNA testing on the blood from the mattress. The PCR judge found counsel was ineffective on this ground. This was error. Failure to conduct an independent investigation does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the allegation is supported only by mere speculation as to the result. Kibler v. State, 267 S.C. 250, 227 S.E.2d 199 (1976). There is nothing in the record to indicate that interviewing the victims would have led to any different result. Respondent admitted the victim of the telephone charge would have reiterated the same accusation and there is nothing to indicate the CSC victim would have retracted her version of the facts. Further, there is no evidence awaiting the DNA test results could have had any impact since respondent admitted the CSC victim had slept on his mattress as an explanation for the menstrual blood. Accordingly, there is no evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate.CONCLUSION A defendant who pleads guilty on the advice of counsel may collaterally attack the plea only by showing that (1) counsel was ineffective and (2) there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pled guilty. Wolfe v. State, __ S.C. __, 485 S.E.2d 367 (1997); Satterwhite v. State, __S.C.__, 481 S.E.2d 709 (1997). Since there is no evidence to support the finding counsel was ineffective, the PCR judge erred in vacating respondent's plea. REVERSED. FINNEY, C.J., TOAL, WALLER and BURNETT, JJ., concur. p. 44