Ray v. StateRay v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Toal
This сase involves whether the petitioner’s guilty plea to armed robbery was intelligently and voluntarily made. We granted the petition for writ оf certiorari after the petitioner’s application for post-cоnviction relief was denied. We now reverse and remand for a new trial.
FACTS
The petitioner Christopher Ray (Ray) was indicted for grand lárcеny, second degree burglary, and two counts of armed robbery. On September 30,1987, Ray pled guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. (2d) 162 (1970) to burglary, third degree, and armed robbery. Judge Luke Brown accepted the pleas and sentenced Ray tо five years imprisonment for third degree burglary and twenty years for armed robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Ray sought .post-conviction relief to set aside his guilty plea on the armed robbery charge, contending his defense counsel on that charge, was inеffective since she erroneously advised him he would be subject tо a sentence of life without parole under the Omnibus Crime Act 1 if he went to trial and was convicted of the two armed robbery chargеs. The State agrees the advice given was erroneous.
Ray stated the overriding factor in his pleading guilty-to the single armed robbery charge was-the spectre of the life without parole sentеnce. Ray further stated at his PCR hearing that he would not have pled guilty аbsent the erroneous advice. Ray’s defense counsel admittеd she was in error but cited her hurried reading of the applicablе statutes in light of the solicitor’s short-time offer to forego prosеcuting *376 Ray on all charges in exchange for a guilty plea on оne armed robbery count. 2
LAW/ANALYSIS
The test for determining the validity of a guilty plеa is: (1) whether counsel’s advice was within the range of compеtence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases; and (2) whethеr there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pled guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S. Ct. 366, 88 L. Ed. (2d) 203 (1985); Hinson v. State, 297 S.C. 456, 377 S.E. (2d) 338 (1989). It is undisputed that prong one is sаtisfied here. The State argues Ray has failed to demonstrate a satisfaction of prong two. We disagree.
The State contends that since Ray “faced a
possible
maximum penalty of seventy-five (75) years without parole if he elected to proceed to trial... [t]his in effect, constitutes a life sentence such аs to render trial counsel’s advice to appellant to bе lacking in sufficient prejudice. . ..” (emphasis added).
See
State’s brief, at 3. The key word in the State’s argument, we believe, is “possible.” Ray was told that if he was convicted of both armed robbery counts, he would be sentenced to life without parole. The reality of Ray’s situation is, if convicted, he
may
face a sentence of seventy-five yeаrs without parole, but could face a sentence as short аs ten years.
3
See
We hold this distinction is sufficient to satisfy prong two of the Hill v. Lockhart test. Ray’s steadfast maintenаnce of his innocence; his uncontroverted testimony that he would not have pled guilty absent the erroneous advice of counsel; and the real distinction between the penalty Ray faces and the advice given him, convince us to REVERSE the lower court and REMAND for a new trial.
Gregory, C.J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.