Hyman v. State
397 S.C. 35
S.C.2012Background
- Indicted June 2007 for distribution of cocaine, third offense, and distribution near a school or park; pleaded guilty in Sept. 2007 after a plea colloquy, waiving rights including jury trial; sentenced to 15 years and 10 years concurrent.
- Petitioner later filed for PCR alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to not viewing a videotaped drug transaction evidence.
- PCR judge credited defense counsel’s knowledge of the tape, viewing by counsel, and availability of still photographs; judge found no prejudice.
- Offer to resolve by five-year sentence conditioned on Petitioner not viewing the videotape due to informant secrecy; offer expired Sept. 18, 2007.
- Petitioner ultimately pled guilty on Sept. 19, 2007 after jury selection; PCR denial with prejudice followed.
- Issues on appeal addressed whether lack of Petitioner’s viewing the tape voided waiver, and whether Brady, Rule 5, and prejudice standards were satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective given Petitioner did not view the videotape before pleading guilty? | Hyman asserts lack of viewing tainted voluntariness. | State argues defense counsel’s actions and negotiations cured prejudice. | No; record supports effective assistance and no prejudice. |
| Did the videotape withholding constitute a Brady violation? | Hyman contends suppression of favorable evidence undermines plea validity. | State contends disclosure to counsel satisfied Brady; evidence inculpatory. | No Brady violation under these facts. |
| Was Rule 5 SCRCrP compliance violated to require personal inspection of the videotape? | Hyman argues failure to view violated Rule 5. | State allowed defense viewing and produced stills; balance with informant safety. | Rule 5 satisfied; not unreasonable to rely on counsel’s access. |
| Did the lack of videotape viewing affect the voluntariness of the plea under standard Strickland/Hill analysis? | Lack of viewing compromised knowing and voluntary plea. | Plea negotiations and record show knowledge of the evidence and consequences. | No prejudice; plea was voluntary and intelligent. |
| Did the PCR court err in weighing credibility and evidence about the videotape and plea negotiations? | Petitioner challenges credibility findings. | Court credited counsel over Petitioner. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (guilty plea context—prejudice requirement aligns with trial standards)
- Anderson v. State, 342 S.C. 54 (S.C. 2000) (voluntariness and awareness of consequences in guilty pleas)
- Holden v. State, 393 S.C. 565 (S.C. 2011) (prejudice inquiry in guilty plea context)
- Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29 (S.C. 2000) (plea record review includes PCR record)
- Suber v. State, 371 S.C. 554 (S.C. 2007) (considers voluntariness with plea and PCR record)
- Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515 (S.C. 1999) (Brady framework applied to guilty plea context)
- Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378 (S.C. 2006) (Brady materiality standard in state cases)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality and suppression standard for Brady)