McKune 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

Whelthy McKune, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212676

Appeal From Lexington County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-012
Heard November 3, 2015 – Filed January 13, 2016

AFFIRMED

Tricia A. Blanchette, of the Law Office of Tricia A.
Blanchette, LLC, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General John Walter Whitmire, and Assistant
Attorney General Patrick Lowell Schmeckpeper, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this post-conviction relief (PCR) matter, Petitioner Whelthy
McKune appeals the PCR court's order denying his PCR application, alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, McKune argues plea counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to adequately prepare for and investigate his case, (2)
failing to adequately explain the State's position on sentencing, (3) failing to object
or move to withdraw McKune's guilty plea at sentencing, and (4) failing to present
a viable defense on McKune's behalf at the reconsideration hearing. We disagree
and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Stalk
v. State, 383 S.C. 559, 560–61, 681 S.E.2d 592, 593 (2009) (stating that in order to
establish a claim for ineffective assistance of plea counsel, a PCR applicant must
prove: (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance
prejudiced the applicant's case); Edwards v. State, 392 S.C. 449, 455, 710 S.E.2d
60, 64 (2011) ("In reviewing a PCR court's decision, an appellate court is
concerned only with whether there is any evidence of probative value that supports
the decision."); Holden v. State, 393 S.C. 565, 573, 713 S.E.2d 611, 615 (2011)
(finding appellate courts give great deference to the PCR court's findings of fact
and conclusions of law); Wolfe v. State, 326 S.C. 158, 164, 485 S.E.2d 367, 370
(1997) ("A defendant who pleads guilty on the advice of counsel may only attack
the voluntary and intelligent character of the plea by showing (1) that counsel's
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that there
is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not
have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial."); Moorehead v.
State, 329 S.C. 329, 334, 496 S.E.2d 415, 417 (1998) ("Failure to conduct an
independent investigation does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel
when the allegation is supported only by mere speculation as to the result.");
Lounds v. State, 380 S.C. 454, 462, 670 S.E.2d 646, 650 (2008) ("[W]hen counsel
articulates a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct generally
will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel." (emphasis omitted));
Drayton v. Evatt, 312 S.C. 4, 11, 430 S.E.2d 517, 521 (1993) ("[Appellate courts]
give great deference to a [PCR court's] findings where matters of credibility are
involved since [appellate courts] lack the opportunity to directly observe the
witnesses."); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 700 (1984) ("Failure to make
the required showing of either deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats
[an] ineffectiveness claim."); Stalk, 383 S.C. at 562, 681 S.E.2d at 594 ("[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."); Hutto v. State, 387 S.C. 244,
249, 692 S.E.2d 196, 198 (2010) ("No prejudice occurs, despite deficient
performance, when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt.").

AFFIRMED.
SHORT, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.