Jamison v. State
765 S.E.2d 123
S.C.2014Background
- In June 2000 Jamison fired into a crowded parking lot after prior altercations with a rival group; a stray bullet killed a 15‑year‑old bystander. Jamison admitted shooting and was indicted for murder but pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 20 years.
- At the plea colloquy Jamison admitted shooting, confirmed his plea was voluntary, and waived defenses; plea counsel noted a possible (imperfect) self‑defense theory but said witnesses would not corroborate.
- No direct appeal was taken. Jamison’s first PCR application was denied. While a Johnson petition was pending, Jamison discovered an inmate, Theotis Bellamy, willing to testify that he saw the rival ("Jig") with a gun and that Jamison shot at Jig in self‑defense. Bellamy said prior threats prevented earlier disclosure.
- Jamison filed a second PCR asserting newly discovered evidence; the PCR judge granted a new trial in the interest of fundamental fairness. The court of appeals affirmed.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, reinstating Jamison’s guilty plea and sentence. The majority held newly discovered evidence can rarely justify vacating a valid guilty plea and set a two‑part, interest‑of‑justice test for such claims.
Issues
| Issue | Jamison's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bellamy’s affidavit was properly raised earlier and thus barred as successive | Jamison: affidavit surfaced after first PCR and was presented in pro se Johnson filing; second PCR timely after discovery | State: Johnson petition review meant the court of appeals already considered the affidavit, so the second application is successive | Court: Not successive — affidavit was not part of the PCR court record and thus not properly before the court of appeals under Rule 243(f) (McHam controlling) |
| Whether a valid guilty plea precludes PCR relief based on newly discovered evidence | Jamison: newly discovered eyewitness would have supported self‑defense and he would have gone to trial if available | State: Guilty pleas waive trial rights and defenses; traditional five‑factor new‑evidence test applies only after trial and bars relief here | Court: A guilty plea does not automatically preclude all PCR claims based on new evidence but relief is rare; set a two‑part interest‑of‑justice test for post‑plea newly discovered evidence |
| Proper standard for newly discovered evidence after a guilty plea | Jamison: apply traditional five‑factor test for after‑discovered evidence | State: traditional five‑factor test applies only to trial convictions; plea admissions change the analysis | Court: Rejects automatic application of traditional five‑factor test after plea; adopts two‑part test: (1) evidence discovered after plea and not discoverable earlier with reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is of such weight/quality that, under the circumstances, the interest of justice requires vacatur |
| Whether Bellamy’s testimony meets the statutory/interest‑of‑justice standard to vacate the plea | Jamison: Bellamy corroborates self‑defense, could not come forward earlier due to threats, and would likely change outcome | State: Bellamy’s account supports transferred self‑defense toward intended target (Jig), not the unintended victim; South Carolina hasn’t recognized transferred self‑defense; thus testimony is not material | Court: Although Bellamy’s testimony likely was newly discovered and not discoverable earlier, it does not meet the interest‑of‑justice bar because it relates to transferred self‑defense (not recognized) and would not overcome Jamison’s voluntary plea admission; vacatur denied |
Key Cases Cited
- McHam v. State, 404 S.C. 465 (2013) (Anders/Johnson review does not consider material outside PCR record)
- McCoy v. State, 401 S.C. 363 (2013) (traditional five‑factor test for after‑discovered evidence)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional claims arising before plea)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (valid plea is not vulnerable to later attack for defendant’s miscalculation of risks)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty plea may be entered while maintaining innocence; plea’s finality emphasized)
- State v. Rice, 401 S.C. 330 (2013) (a guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional constitutional claims)
- Williams v. State, 363 S.C. 341 (2005) (appellate deference to PCR factual findings when any probative evidence supports them)
- Reise (In re Reise), 192 P.3d 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (traditional after‑discovered evidence test is difficult to apply when defendant pled guilty)