Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-MO-031 - Wright 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


Rocksell Wright, Respondent

v.

State of South Carolina, Petitioner


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From Greenville County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2006-MO-031
Submitted September 20, 2006 – Filed October 23, 2006 


REVERSED


Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert  M. Pachak, of Columbia, and Robert Matthew Sneed, of Greenville, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court’s grant of post-conviction relief to respondent, Rocksell Wright.  We now reverse pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:   Scott v. State, 334 S.C. 248, 513 S.E.2d 100 (1999) (a PCR applicant must show both error and prejudice to obtain relief); Roscoe v. State, 345 S.C. 16, 546 S.E.2d 417 (2001) (to be entitled to relief on PCR, the applicant must demonstrate prejudice); Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 480 S.E.2d 733 (1997) (to prove prejudice, applicant must show there is a reasonable probability the result at trial would have been different); Kibler v. State, 267 S.C. 250, 227 S.E.2d 199 (1976) (the Court will not speculate concerning what might have occurred if counsel had conducted further investigation); Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996) (where there is no probative evidence to support the PCR court’s findings, the findings should not be upheld).

REVERSED.

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