Medlock 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

 

Cookie Tracey Medlock, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appeal from Horry County

James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-497

Heard October 3, 2011 – Filed November 7, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson and Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, both of Columbia, for
Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W.
McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Cookie Tracey Medlock pled guilty to leaving the scene of an
accident resulting in death and was sentenced to nineteen years' imprisonment
without the possibility of parole.  Medlock appeals the PCR court's order
denying her application for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective
assistance of counsel.  Specifically, Medlock argues that counsel's deficient
performance resulted in her receiving an unduly harsh sentence.  We affirm.

We hold
the PCR court properly denied Medlock's application for post-conviction
relief.  In order to establish a claim for ineffective assistance of guilty
plea counsel, a PCR applicant must prove: (1) counsel's performance was
deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case.  Stalk
v. State, 383 S.C. 559, 560-61, 681 S.E.2d 592, 593 (2009).  "[I]n
order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors he would not
have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial."  Id. at 562, 681 S.E.2d at 594.

Even if
Medlock had proven counsel's performance was deficient, she failed to meet her
burden to establish prejudice. During the PCR hearing, Medlock testified she
decided to plead guilty because she did leave the scene of the accident. 
Further, she acknowledged five of the six charges against her were dropped as
part of the plea negotiation.  In addition, counsel testified Medlock told him
she did not wish to put the families of the victims through a trial.  At no
time during the PCR hearing did Medlock counter counsel's testimony. 
Significantly, Medlock did not testify she would not have pled guilty absent
the purported errors made by counsel. See Smith v. State, 369
S.C. 135, 138-39, 631 S.E.2d 260, 261-62 (2006) (stating where a PCR applicant
fails to testify that he would have gone to trial instead of pleading guilty,
he cannot meet his burden to show prejudice). Therefore, Medlock failed to
prove that any deficient performance by plea counsel prejudiced her case. 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, AND GEATHERS, JJ., concur.