813 S.E.2d 704
S.C.2018Background
- Brandon Garren pleaded guilty to ABHAN and CDVHAN after brutal assaults on his live-in girlfriend; he was sentenced to concurrent 15 and 10 year terms. No direct appeal was taken.
- Original charges included attempted murder, kidnapping, CDVHAN, and firearm offenses; plea reduced charges and dismissed more serious counts. Plea colloquy included defendant’s sworn statements that he understood the proceedings and was not under drugs/alcohol.
- At plea hearing counsel said Garren had physical and some mental problems, and that Garren previously abused prescription meds; counsel later regretted not obtaining a psychological evaluation.
- In PCR, Garren alleged plea counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a competency evaluation and that unidentified jail/medical medications rendered his plea involuntary; Garren offered only his own vague testimony about unspecified medications and lack of recollection.
- The PCR court granted relief, finding counsel deficient for not seeking a competency evaluation and that Garren’s plea was involuntary because medication impaired his understanding.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the PCR ruling, reversed it, and reinstated Garren’s convictions and sentences, holding the PCR findings were unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Garren) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for not obtaining a competency evaluation | Counsel should have sought evaluation given Garren’s apparent mental problems and counsel’s later regret | Counsel reasonably relied on his own observations; no contemporaneous indicia of incompetence justified evaluation | No — counsel’s decision was reasonable and record contains no evidence counsel’s omission fell below professional norms |
| Whether Garren proved prejudice from counsel’s failure to seek evaluation (Strickland prong two) | A competency exam likely would have shown incompetence and changed outcome | No evidence was presented that an evaluation would have produced a finding of incompetence; prejudice is speculative | No — Garren presented no evidence showing a reasonable probability he was incompetent at plea time |
| Whether plea was involuntary due to medication given in jail/medical treatment | Medication rendered Garren unable to understand or recall the plea; plea therefore not knowing or voluntary | Sworn plea colloquy denied influence of drugs; no objective proof of what meds, doses, timing, or effects; mere ingestion is insufficient | No — defendant’s vague, self‑serving testimony without objective data fails to prove medication impaired his capacity to enter a knowing and voluntary plea |
| Whether PCR court’s factual findings were supported by probative evidence | PCR court credited Garren’s testimony and found medication influence | The record lacks probative evidence—plea colloquy and counsel’s testimony contradict impairment claim | Reversed — PCR court’s factual findings were unsupported by the evidence and were legal error; convictions and sentences reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230 (Competency standard to plead; burden to prove incompetence)
- Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (Competency test same for pleading and trial; knowing and voluntary inquiry distinct)
- Truglio v. United States, 493 F.2d 574 (Due process requires proof medication so impaired faculties that plea not knowing/voluntary)
- United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561 (Objective data required to assess medication’s effect; court should inquire when medication is disclosed)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (Finality and solemnity of guilty pleas)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Rule 11 and procedural safeguards to ensure voluntary pleas)