Opinion ID: 1203175
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prejudice to support grant of PCR

Text: The State cross-appeals the grant of PCR on the burglary charge. We agree relief was improperly granted. 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. Moorehead v. State, 329 S.C. 329, 496 S.E.2d 415 (1998). On appeal, if there is any probative evidence to support the findings of the PCR judge, those findings must be upheld. Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (1999); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989). The PCR judge found counsel was ineffective because she failed to advise Knox that he would not be eligible for parole until he had served 85% of the fifteen-year sentence on this charge. Unless counsel gives erroneous parole advice, however, parole information is not a ground for collateral attack of a guilty plea. Smith v. State, 329 S.C. 280, 494 S.E.2d 626 (1997). Counsel is not ineffective for failing to advise a defendant regarding parole eligibility because it is a collateral consequence of sentencing. Id. In this case, counsel testified she never discussed parole with Knox. This testimony is uncontested. Moreover, there is no evidence Knox would not have pled guilty but for counsel's failure to advise him regarding parole. Further, the PCR judge found counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Knox that the minimum sentence he could receive for first degree burglary was fifteen years. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-311(B) (Supp.1998). Counsel admitted she did not tell Knox he would receive a minimum sentence of fifteen years for the burglary charge. She told him the agreement with the Solicitor's office was that he would receive a maximum of fifteen years for all three charges. Knox testified he understood he could get less than fifteen years and he would not have pled guilty had he known he could not. A defendant must be advised of a mandatory punishment for the offense to which he is pleading. State v. Hazel, 275 S.C. 392, 271 S.E.2d 602 (1980). Despite counsel's failure to advise Knox regarding the mandatory minimum sentence, however, the trial judge did properly advise him at the plea hearing, thereby curing any misconception. Moorehead v. State, supra . Further, there is no evidence to support the PCR judge's conclusion that the trial judge never allowed [Knox] the opportunity to rescind his guilty plea once he explained the actual sentence. We find no evidence of prejudice to support the grant of PCR on this issue.