787 S.E.2d 525
S.C.2016Background
- Petitioner Didier Van Sellner was charged with armed robbery after handing a teller a note demanding $3,000, threatening to shoot her if she did not comply; the teller gave him $492 and he fled. Van Sellner was captured the same day and confessed.
- Van Sellner had prior out-of-state convictions that exposed him to a mandatory enhanced sentence (life without parole potential), so counsel advised accepting a plea.
- At the plea hearing the State recited the facts but did not allege Van Sellner displayed a weapon or took an action that would allow a witness to reasonably believe he was armed; the court accepted the guilty plea and sentenced him to 12 years.
- On PCR, Van Sellner argued plea counsel was ineffective for advising him to plead to armed robbery where the facts did not support the statutory element requiring that the robber be armed or that a representation of a weapon corroborated the verbal threat.
- The PCR court denied relief, finding counsel not deficient because Van Sellner’s note threatened the teller and thus comported to the statute; this Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for advising Van Sellner to plead to armed robbery when the facts lacked corroboration of a weapon | Van Sellner: words alone (the note) cannot satisfy the corroborating physical-representation requirement of the armed-robbery statute; counsel was deficient and prejudice is shown because he would have gone to trial | State: the note threatening to shoot the teller sufficed to allege he was armed by words and counsel’s advice was reasonable; no showing of prejudice | Court reversed PCR denial: counsel deficient and plea involuntary where Muldrow requires corroborating physical representation and the State presented no such evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Muldrow, 348 S.C. 264, 559 S.E.2d 847 (S.C. 2002) (words alone are insufficient; armed-robbery conviction requires corroborating physical representation or conduct)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003) (ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applying Strickland test to challenges to guilty pleas)
- Holden v. State, 393 S.C. 565, 713 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. 2011) (standard for proving ineffective assistance in plea context)