CourtListener 10152880•Harold Jones, Jr. v. State
Texte intégral
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
Harold Jones, Jr., Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2019-000396
Appeal From Charleston County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-362
Submitted October 1, 2023 – Filed November 8, 2023
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.
Assistant Attorney General Danielle Dixon, of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: This Court granted certiorari to review the post-conviction relief
(PCR) court's finding that Petitioner Harold Jones failed to prove plea counsel was
ineffective for failing to advise him of a plea offer. We affirm.
Petitioner was charged with murder and possession of a weapon during the
commission of a violent crime. Plea counsel negotiated a plea offer with the State
in which Petitioner would plead guilty as indicted to the weapon charge and to the
lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter in exchange for a negotiated
sentence of twenty-two and a half years' imprisonment. However, immediately
before the scheduled plea hearing, Petitioner's family members informed counsel
that they believed he was incompetent and unable to knowingly and voluntarily
plead guilty. As a result, counsel informed the State that Petitioner could not plead
guilty until the latter's competency was officially determined. The State withdrew
the twenty-two-and-a-half-year offer at that time.
The following Tuesday, the State communicated a twenty-three-year plea offer to
counsel, but conditioned the offer on Petitioner pleading within a week and
providing it documentation certifying his competency before the plea. Counsel
informed the State the earliest competency evaluation he was able to obtain was
scheduled for several weeks after the expiration of the offer. Based upon this
information, the State withdrew the offer and counsel did not inform Petitioner of
it. Months later and after Petitioner was deemed competent, he pled guilty in
exchange for a negotiated sentence of thirty-five years' imprisonment.
We find probative evidence supports the PCR court's finding that Petitioner was
not prejudiced by counsel's failure to communicate the twenty-three-year offer.
See Collins v. State, 422 S.C. 250, 262, 810 S.E.2d 871, 877 (2018) (explaining
that a PCR applicant alleging counsel was ineffective in handling a plea offer must
prove prejudice by "demonstrat[ing] a reasonable probability that: (1) he 'would
have accepted the earlier plea offer had [he] been afforded effective assistance of
counsel;' (2) 'the plea would have been entered without the prosecution canceling it
or the trial court refusing to accept it;' and (3) 'the end result of the criminal process
would have been more favorable by reason of a plea to a lesser charge or a
sentence of less prison time'" (quoting Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134, 147
(2012))). Undisputed evidence showed the twenty-three-year plea offer was
conditioned on Petitioner pleading and providing documentation proving he was
competent within a week of the offer. Petitioner could not have pled during that
week-long period because the earliest competency evaluation plea counsel could
procure for him was scheduled for several weeks after the plea offer expired.
Further, even if the parties agreed to allow Petitioner to plead guilty at the time, the
plea court would not have accepted the guilty plea without a competency
evaluation establishing Petitioner was competent. See id.; see also Garren v. State,
423 S.C. 1, 14, 813 S.E.2d 704, 711 (2018) ("Before a defendant may plead guilty,
it must be established that the defendant is competent and that the defendant's
decision to plead guilty is a knowing and voluntary one.").
AFFIRMED. 1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT and VERDIN, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.