892 S.E.2d 153
S.C. Ct. App.2023Background
- On August 13, 2008, Antonio Tisdale was shot and later died; witnesses identified Dominic Leggette as the shooter after a confrontation between rival neighborhood groups.
- Leggette was indicted for murder and ABWIK; at trial the jury was instructed on murder, voluntary manslaughter, ABHAN, ABWIK, and self-defense. Trial counsel did not object to the voluntary manslaughter instruction.
- Witness testimony conflicted: some described Petitioner being surrounded and followed by Tisdale and others (supporting fear/self-defense); others described Petitioner turning and firing without provocation. Petitioner admitted buying an illegal gun and giving inconsistent statements to police.
- After lengthy deliberations and an Allen charge, the jury convicted Leggette of voluntary manslaughter and ABHAN; he received concurrent sentences (voluntary manslaughter: 30 years).
- Leggette sought post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the voluntary manslaughter instruction (and other counsel errors). The PCR court denied relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leggette) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to giving voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense | Trial counsel should have objected because the evidence did not support heat of passion/legal provocation for voluntary manslaughter | Any evidence supporting a rational inference of voluntary manslaughter required the instruction; counsel’s failure to object was not deficient or prejudicial | Affirmed — voluntary manslaughter instruction was supported by some evidence; counsel not ineffective |
| Preservation: Did Leggette preserve the specific argument that evidence did not support voluntary manslaughter? | Argues on appeal that the trial evidence did not support manslaughter | State contends pro se PCR pleadings were imprecise and did not clearly present that exact argument below | Court notes preservation issues but addresses merits given PCR court’s analysis and parties’ briefing; not forfeited for disposition |
| Other alleged counsel failures (failure to call character witness; failure to request involuntary manslaughter) | Counsel omitted witnesses and alternative manslaughter theory that could have supported acquittal or lesser sentence | PCR record showed counsel pursued self-defense and mitigation; strategic choices and inconsistent defendant statements undercut prejudice claim | Denied — PCR court found no deficient performance or sufficient prejudice for these ancillary claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Starnes, 388 S.C. 590 (lesser‑included manslaughter charge required if any evidence supports heat of passion/legal provocation)
- State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490 (explains when voluntary manslaughter is a traditional lesser offense of murder)
- Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551 (due process limits on submitting lesser‑included instructions)
- State v. Sams, 410 S.C. 303 (heat of passion standard — disturbance of reason/uncontrollable impulse)
- State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352 (provocation must come from the victim or acts related to the victim to support manslaughter)