Wise 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

Stanley Wise, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2010-158727

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Spartanburg County
James E. Lockemy, Trial Court Judge
Roger L. Couch, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-233
Heard June 4, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Stanley Wise appeals the post-conviction relief court's denial of
his claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Wise claims his counsel
was ineffective for not objecting to the submission to the jury room of the
transcript from part of his original trial that included testimony of the State's
witness. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (stating to prove trial counsel
was ineffective, the defendant must show (1) trial counsel's performance was
deficient and (2) the deficiency prejudiced the defendant); State v. Plyler, 275 S.C.
291, 298, 270 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1980) (stating the trial court, in its discretion, may
permit the jurors to review testimony during their deliberations); Bennett v. State,
383 S.C. 303, 308, 680 S.E.2d 273, 275 (2009) (finding trial counsel was not
ineffective for failing to renew his objection to testimony as inadmissible hearsay
where the trial court overruled trial counsel's previous objection to similar
testimony).

AFFIRMED.

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