795 S.E.2d 29
S.C.2016Background
- James D. Robertson was convicted and sentenced to death in 1999; he pursued direct appeal and a 2006 PCR represented by court-appointed counsel Brown and Matlock; relief was denied and certiorari was denied in 2010.
- In 2011, with federally appointed counsel, Robertson filed a second PCR alleging trial/appellate counsel error and that prior PCR counsel were unqualified under S.C. Code § 17-27-160(B) and ineffective.
- The State moved to dismiss the 2011 application as untimely, successive, barred by laches, and meritless; the circuit court summarily dismissed without a hearing.
- The circuit court held Martinez did not require a state-court remedy and treated the challenge to prior PCR counsel largely as an ineffectiveness claim not sufficient to overcome the successive-application bar; it also concluded the record did not show counsel were unqualified.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed: it held Martinez does not create a state-law right to file a successive PCR, but Robertson’s specific statutory claim that prior PCR counsel failed to meet § 17-27-160(B) qualifications constituted a “sufficient reason” under § 17-27-90 to permit a successive application and warranted an evidentiary hearing.
- The Court construed § 17-27-160(B) to require that at least one appointed attorney either have prior capital PCR experience or have capital-trial experience plus recent (within two years) specialized capital appellate/PCR CLE or training; it remanded for a hearing to resolve factual disputes about counsel’s qualifications and, if unqualified, to apply Strickland to determine prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robertson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martinez allows state successive PCR to challenge prior PCR counsel | Martinez-equivalent relief should permit excusing procedural bars where prior PCR counsel were ineffective | Martinez applies only to federal habeas; state courts not required to adopt its rule | Martinez limited to federal habeas; state remedy not created but Kelly reaffirmed and extended to capital PCR cases |
| Whether allegation that prior PCR counsel were unqualified under § 17-27-160(B) overcomes prohibition on successive PCRs (§ 17-27-90) | Lack of statutorily required qualifications is a distinct, state-created right and is a "sufficient reason" to allow successive filing | Such claims are routine ineffectiveness allegations and do not justify successive applications | Allegation that counsel were unqualified under § 17-27-160(B) is a sufficient reason to permit a successive PCR; remand for hearing on factual dispute |
| Proper interpretation of § 17-27-160(B) qualifications for capital PCR counsel | At least one appointed attorney must have prior capital PCR experience or capital-trial experience plus 12 hours of relevant recent CLE/training | Qualification to try capital cases (per § 16-3-26) plus general CLE suffices | Court adopts petitioner’s construction: require either prior capital PCR experience or capital-trial experience plus 12 hours of specialized CLE/training within two years |
| Remedy if counsel found unqualified | Vacatur of prior proceeding and further proceedings to vindicate state-created right; apply appropriate prejudice analysis | No per se reversal; existing remedies (e.g., Butler) suffice; or treat as ineffectiveness requiring Strickland prejudice | Noncompliance with § 17-27-160(B) is deficient performance per se; petitioner still must prove prejudice under Strickland; remand for hearing and prejudice determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (federal habeas equitable rule excusing procedural default where initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Aice v. State, 305 S.C. 448 (1991) (successive PCR barred unless a ‘sufficient reason’ exists for not raising claim earlier)
- Kelly v. State, 404 S.C. 365 (2013) (Martinez limited to federal habeas and not applicable to state PCR)
- Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (federal habeas equitable rule re lawyer abandonment in capital PCR context)