Opinion ID: 1341304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Present a Defense

Text: The State argues the PCR judge erred in finding trial counsel ineffective in failing to present any defense. We agree. At trial, respondent's statement which set forth his defense that he was merely reclaiming the property that had been taken from him was admitted. Counsel cross-examined the police officer as to respondent's statement and Stanford's corroborating statement. The solicitor mentioned the defense and discredited it in his closing argument. Counsel requested and received a jury charge that a person cannot steal his own property. However, counsel did not offer any witnesses and respondent did not testify. At the PCR hearing, counsel testified he argued respondent's defense to the jury [4] and requested and received a jury charge on the defense. Counsel admitted he did not attempt to find other witnesses to support respondent's allegation that the stolen property belonged to him. Respondent acknowledged counsel argued the defense in closing. We find the probative evidence fails to support the PCR judge's finding on this issue. Satterwhite v. State, supra . Instead, counsel presented respondent's defense that respondent was merely reclaiming his property. While it is true counsel did not present any witnesses at trial, a criminal defendant is not required to present evidence. Further, respondent has not shown what additional evidence counsel could have presented to support this defense. Glover, supra . Accordingly, respondent did not establish counsel was deficient or that any deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Further, it was a strategic decision not to have respondent testify. See Stokes v. State, supra . Respondent has a conviction for possession of crack cocaine, a crime of moral turpitude, which could have been used to impeach him. See State v. Major, 301 S.C. 181, 391 S.E.2d 235 (1990). Counsel testified at the PCR hearing he was aware of respondent's conviction. While confusion arose over whether respondent had a previous conviction for strong arm robbery, this matter was resolved before sentencing. Further, regardless whether respondent had a prior robbery conviction, counsel would have still advised respondent not to testify because of his prior drug conviction. Thus, respondent has failed to show prejudice.