Guilty plea upheld despite defendant’s misunderstanding about merger of convictions

The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a post-conviction relief ruling that had set aside the defendant’s guilty plea, concluding that plea counsel was not ineffective and that the plea was knowing and voluntary despite the defendant’s mistaken belief about how his sentences operated.

The defendant faced multiple criminal charges stemming from separate incidents in November and December 2007. In January 2009, he was tried and convicted for offenses arising from a December 10 incident and received a 25-year prison sentence, with the sentences on related charges running concurrently. While his appeal from those convictions was pending, the defendant entered a guilty plea in March 2009 to additional charges arising from a separate December 14 incident. He again received a 25-year sentence, ordered to run concurrently with the earlier sentence.

In a later PCR action, the defendant argued that his plea counsel was ineffective for failing to explain that the guilty plea convictions did not “merge” with his earlier trial convictions. He claimed he believed that if his trial convictions were overturned on appeal, the guilty plea convictions would automatically be affected. The PCR court credited this testimony and granted relief, finding the plea unknowing and involuntary.

On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals applied the Strickland v. Washington standard and disagreed. The court emphasized that counsel testified he never advised that the convictions would merge and that his strategy focused on securing concurrent sentences to reduce the defendant’s exposure to life without parole. The record contained no evidence that counsel caused the defendant’s misunderstanding.

The court also highlighted the significant benefits of the plea, including avoidance of a potential LWOP sentence and dismissal of 23 other pending charges. Because the charges arose from separate incidents with different victims, the defendant could not show a reasonable probability that he would have insisted on going to trial absent the alleged error.

The court held that plea counsel’s performance fell within the range of competent representation and that the PCR court erred in granting relief.

The 13 page opinion is Robinson v. State of South Carolina, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-003-26.