Opinion ID: 1297026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellate Errors

Text: Petitioner also argues counsel was ineffective for failing to properly address this same issue on appeal. We agree. In his brief to the Court of Appeals, counsel devoted three short paragraphs to this issue, did not give any useful analysis, and only cited one case, North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). In its opinion, the Court of Appeals did not specifically address the issue of prosecutorial retaliation. The court merely concluded that the indictments which had been nol prossed could be brought in the retrial, since they were nol prossed before the jury was impaneled. State v. Patrick, 318 S.C. 352, 457 S.E.2d 632 (Ct.App.1995). Counsel did not make any note of this issue in his petition for rehearing. Subsequently on July 27, 1995, the Court of Appeals sua sponte directed the parties to address this issue of prosecutorial retaliation in a supplemental petition for rehearing in light of Pearce and State v. Fletcher (originally filed June 19, 1995 but subsequently withdrawn and refiled with a different result in 322 S.C. 256, 471 S.E.2d 702 (Ct.App. 1996) cert. denied Jan. 23, 1997.) Counsel submitted a supplemental brief. However, counsel's argument was conclusory at best. He did not even mention the seminal case, Pearce, in his supplemental brief. The State vigorously objected to the Court of Appeals even considering something that had not been properly included in a petition for rehearing, citing Rule 226(d)(2), SCACR. After the rebriefing, the Court of Appeals denied the petition for rehearing, stating: The issue was argued in a conclusory fashion in [petitioner's] final brief. Moreover, the issue was not stated with particularity in [petitioner's] petition for rehearing.... After careful consideration of the parties' briefs, [petitioner's] petition for rehearing, respondent's return, and supplemental responses requested by the Court, the petition for rehearing is denied. As evidenced by counsel's briefs and the Court of Appeals' statement above, counsel was deficient in failing to adequately raise or address the merits of the issue of prosecutorial retaliation.