Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-MO-001 - Harper v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court


Steven Harper, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From Darlington County
John L. Breeden, Trial Judge
John M. Milling, Post-Conviction Relief Judge


Memorandum Opinion No.  2006-MO-001 
Submitted January 5, 2006 – Filed January 23, 2006


AFFIRMED


Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the dismissal of Petitioner’s application for post-conviction relief (PCR).  After careful review of the Appendix and briefs, the dismissal is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: Patterson v. State, 359 S.C. 115, 117, 597 S.E.2d 150, 151 (2004) (providing, “To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR applicant must establish that trial counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability the result would have been different”) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)); Hall v. Catoe, 360 S.C. 353, 359, 601 S.E.2d 335, 338 (2004) (providing that an appellate court must affirm the factual findings of the PCR court if there is any probative evidence in the record to support them); Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 426 S.E.2d 795 (1993) (affirming the dismissal of a PCR application because there was some probative evidence in the record to support the PCR court’s finding that trial counsel’s performance was not deficient).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.