Casey v. State

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 Court of Appeals

Larry Dean Casey, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2011-184746

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Trial Court Judge
J. Mark Hayes, II, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-264
Heard May 8, 2014 – Filed June 30, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for
Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General Suzanne Hollifield White, and Assistant
Attorney General Karen Christine Ratigan, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this post-conviction relief (PCR) case, the PCR court denied
Petitioner Larry Dean Casey's application for PCR, rejecting Casey's claims that
(1) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to properly investigate and prepare
for trial, and the alleged deficiency in counsel's performance resulted in a longer
sentence than what Casey would have received under a plea offer that Casey
rejected on the advice of his trial counsel; and (2) Casey's trial counsel provided
inadequate representation during the pretrial suppression hearing. Casey appealed,
and this court granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of PCR. Pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities, we now affirm the denial of
PCR:

1. As to trial counsel's investigation and preparation for trial: Edwards v. State,
392 S.C. 449, 456, 710 S.E.2d 60, 64 (2011) (stating that to receive PCR for
ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must first show his trial counsel's
performance was deficient when judged under the standard of "reasonableness
under prevailing professional norms" (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 688 (1984))); Speaks v. State, 377 S.C. 396, 399, 660 S.E.2d 512, 514 (2008)
("In post-conviction proceedings, the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove
the allegations in his application." (citing Butler v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 442, 334
S.E.2d 813, 814 (1985))); id. ("On appeal, the PCR court's ruling should be upheld
if it is supported by any evidence of probative value in the record." (citing Cherry
v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989))); Drayton v. Evatt, 312
S.C. 4, 11, 430 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1993) ("We give great deference to a judge's
findings where matters of credibility are involved since we lack the opportunity to
directly observe the witnesses.").

2. As to Casey's argument that his trial counsel provided inadequate
representation during the pretrial suppression hearing: Ard v. Catoe, 372 S.C. 318,
331, 642 S.E.2d 590, 596 (2007) ("There is a strong presumption that counsel
rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in
making all significant decisions in the case."); Padgett v. State, 324 S.C. 22, 26,
484 S.E.2d 101, 102-03 (1997) ("Where counsel articulates a valid reason for
employing certain trial strategy, the conduct will not be deemed ineffective.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.