THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
Hoyt A. Morris, Petitioner,
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appeal From York County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-012
Submitted April 21, 2010 – Filed May 3, 2010
Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz III, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Ashley McMahan, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Petitioner Hoyt A. Morris appeals from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 109, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) (stating this Court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings of fact and conclusions of law); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989) (holding a PCR judge's findings will be upheld if there is any evidence of probative value to support them); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (explaining that in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must prove: (1) counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case); Id. at 688 (providing the proper measure for evaluating counsel's trial performance is to determine whether counsel's efforts were reasonable under the prevailing professional norms); Id. at 689 (finding a decision as to counsel's conduct must be made from counsel's perspective at the time, removing, as best as possible, the distortion caused by hindsight review).
TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.