Andrew Bright (Respondent) was charged with three counts of kidnapping, three counts of pointing a firearm, and criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. After negotiating a plea agreement with the state, Respondent pled guilty to one count of kidnapрing and three counts of pointing a firearm. Respondent was sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment for kidnapping and five years for each count of pointing a firearm, to be served concurrently with the kidnapping sentence. Respоndent applied for post-conviction relief (PCR), and following a hearing, relief was granted on the basis that the plea was not freely and voluntarily given. This Court granted the State’s petition for certiorari. We reverse.
Factual/Procedural Background
The parties do not dispute the facts in this case. After moving from Florida to South Carolina, Respondent went to live with his half-sister and her husband. Eventually, Respondent mоved across the street to live with his mother.
One day, while at his half-sister’s house, Respondent and his half-sister got into an argument. At some рoint during the argument, Respondent left the house and went to his mother’s house to get a shotgun and shotgun shells. When he returned to his half-sister’s house, he pointed the shotgun at her, restrained her with a bathrobe belt, and made her get down on the floor. A couple of hours later, his half-sister’s husband came home to find Respondent holding his half-sister at gunpoint. Respondent pointed the gun at the husband and told his half-sister to tie up her husband with an extension cord. Later, Respondent’s mother arrived, and she, too, was tied up.
While the threе were tied up, Respondent questioned them about family matters. Several hours later, satisfied that he had learned all of the information that he wanted, Respondent told his half-sister to call the police and she did. Respondent surrendered when the police arrived.
Did the PCR court err in finding that counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the plea proceeding?
Law/Analysis
Standard op Review
This Court gives great deference tо the PCR court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Caprood v. State,
Discussion
The state contends that thе PCR judge erred in granting Respondent relief. We agree. To prove that counsel was ineffective when a guilty plea is challenged, petitioner must show that counsels performance was deficient and that, but for counsels errors, there is a reаsonable probability a guilty plea
At the PCR hearing, Respondent testified that counsel (1)did not take enough time to meet with him; (2) did not inform Respondent about his right to a bail hearing, a bond hearing, or preliminary hearing; and (3) admitted Respondent’s guilt without Respondent’s сonsent. Based on this testimony, the PCR court made the following findings:
(1) counsel did not adequately consider the grave nature of the indiсtments and failed to meet with and inform Respondent in a manner that would allow Respondent to make informed and voluntary deсisions regarding his defense;
(2) counsel waived Respondent’s substantive and procedural rights without Respondent’s knowledge or consent; and
(3) Respondent’s plea was not freely and voluntarily made because he was not adequately informed of his prоcedural rights and defenses, and was erroneously counseled to give affirmative responses to the trial judge during the pleа.
As a result, the PCR court found that Respondent would not have pled guilty but for counsel’s error.
We find no evidence to support thе PCR court’s findings. The record indicates that counsel met with Respondent on two separate occasions. Although Respondent’s plea counsel did not appear at the PCR hearing, at the plea hearing, counsel stated, “I have taken sоme time, as I’m required to do, to go over with him the elements of the charges and how his actions would have satisfied those elements, both on pointing and kidnapping.” Counsel also explained that he talked “a lot” with Respondent about talcing the stand and giving his version of the facts, which were identical to the state’s version. In addition, at the plea hearing, Respondent said that he was satisfied with his counsel’s services, did not have any problems with counsel’s representation, and that he regretted his crimes. Accordingly, we find that counsel was not ineffective.
Moreover, we find that counsel’s plea negotiations for Respondent'proved advantageous. Counsel successfully negotiated a plea agreement in which two kidnapping and one criminal sexual conduct charge were dropped. Moreover, the solicitor agreed to ask for twenty-years imprisоnment for the
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse thе PCR court’s ruling and reinstate Respondent’s convictions and sentence.
REVERSED
Notes
. Respondent did not receive the maximum sentence for these crimes. For example, he could have received thirty-years imprisonment — the maximum sentence — for one charge of kidnapping alone.