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 Supreme Court

Jonathan Matthew Holder, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000057

Appeal from Pickens County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2023-MO-011

Submitted May 15, 2023 – Filed June 14, 2023

REVERSED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of 

Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior 

Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, 

both of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court's denial

of Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief (PCR).1

 We reverse.

Petitioner was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and 

third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and the trial court sentenced him 

to ten years in prison. At trial, the assistant solicitor, with no foundation, sought to 

introduce improper character evidence against Petitioner. Petitioner's trial counsel 

objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection but denied 

the motion for a mistrial, instead instructing the jury to disregard the assistant 

solicitor's line of questioning. Petitioner's trial counsel failed to object to the trial 

court's curative instruction or renew the mistrial motion. As a result, the issue was 

not preserved for appellate review. Petitioner appealed on the basis that the trial 

court had erred in denying his motion for a mistrial, and the court of appeals affirmed 

his convictions, finding the mistrial issue was not preserved for review. State v. 

Holder, Op. No. 2017-UP-239 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 7, 2017) (per curiam).

Petitioner then sought PCR, asserting trial counsel was ineffective in failing to 

challenge the sufficiency of the trial court's curative instruction or preserve for 

appellate review the denial of his motion for a mistrial. The PCR court concluded 

Petitioner had failed to establish either prong of the test for ineffective assistance of 

counsel set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). We find the 

PCR court's conclusion erroneous. See Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174, 180–81, 810 

S.E.2d 836, 839 (2018) ("We defer to a PCR court's findings of fact and will uphold 

them if there is evidence in the record to support them. We review questions of law 

de novo, with no deference to trial courts." (citing Sellner v. State, 416 S.C. 606, 

610, 787 S.E.2d 525, 527 (2016))).

The State concedes Petitioner has established trial counsel's performance—his 

failure to preserve the issue for appellate review—was deficient under the first prong 

of Strickland. It is clear from the record that trial counsel did not object to the 

sufficiency of the curative charge or renew the mistrial motion. See State v. George, 

323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial [court] sustains a 

timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard 

the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured. No issue is preserved for appellate 

review if the objecting party accepts the [court's] ruling and does not 

contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative 

charge or move for a mistrial." (citations omitted)).

 

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
As to Strickland's prejudice prong, we find the conduct of the assistant solicitor, 

notwithstanding the trial court's curative instruction, substantially undermined 

confidence in the outcome of Petitioner's trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ("[To 

prove prejudice, t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, 

but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome."). Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner is entitled to 

PCR. The PCR court's decision denying relief is hereby

REVERSED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.