Opinion ID: 1229218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Successive Application

Text: The State first argues the PCR judge erred by denying the State's motion to dismiss respondent's PCR application as successive. We disagree. A successive application is one that raises grounds not raised in a prior application, raises grounds previously heard and determined, or raises grounds waived in prior proceedings. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-27-90 (1976 & Supp.1997). Successive applications are disfavored and the applicant has the burden to establish that any new ground raised in a subsequent application could not have been raised by him in a previous application. Arnold v. State, 309 S.C. 157, 420 S.E.2d 834 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 927, 113 S.Ct. 1302, 122 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993); Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448, 409 S.E.2d 392 (1991); Foxworth v. State, 275 S.C. 615, 274 S.E.2d 415 (1981). This Court must affirm the findings of the PCR court if they are supported by any evidence of probative value in the record. Webb v. State, 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E.2d 839 (1984). We find respondent's claims concerning parole eligibility are not successive. Respondent learned he was ineligible for parole on October 26, 1995, and within a month he filed the current PCR application. He could not have raised this claim in a previous PCR application because he did not know of the claim until October 26, 1995. We further find the PCR judge's order denying the State's motion to dismiss respondent's application as successive is supported by evidence of probative value. See Webb v. State, supra .