Jonathan Matthew Holder v. State ( 2023 )

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
Jonathan Matthew Holder, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2021-000057
Appeal from Pickens County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2023-MO-011
Submitted May 15, 2023 – Filed June 14, 2023
REVERSED
Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the circuit court's denial
of Petitioner's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). 1 We reverse.
Petitioner was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and
third-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and the trial court sentenced him
to ten years in prison. At trial, the assistant solicitor, with no foundation, sought to
introduce improper character evidence against Petitioner. Petitioner's trial counsel
objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection but denied
the motion for a mistrial, instead instructing the jury to disregard the assistant
solicitor's line of questioning. Petitioner's trial counsel failed to object to the trial
court's curative instruction or renew the mistrial motion. As a result, the issue was
not preserved for appellate review. Petitioner appealed on the basis that the trial
court had erred in denying his motion for a mistrial, and the court of appeals affirmed
his convictions, finding the mistrial issue was not preserved for review. State v.
Holder, Op. No. 2017-UP-239 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 7, 2017) (per curiam).
Petitioner then sought PCR, asserting trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
challenge the sufficiency of the trial court's curative instruction or preserve for
appellate review the denial of his motion for a mistrial. The PCR court concluded
Petitioner had failed to establish either prong of the test for ineffective assistance of
counsel set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). We find the
PCR court's conclusion erroneous. See Smalls v. State, 422 S.C. 174, 180–81, 810
S.E.2d 836, 839 (2018) ("We defer to a PCR court's findings of fact and will uphold
them if there is evidence in the record to support them. We review questions of law
de novo, with no deference to trial courts." (citing Sellner v. State, 416 S.C. 606,
610, 787 S.E.2d 525, 527 (2016))).
The State concedes Petitioner has established trial counsel's performance—his
failure to preserve the issue for appellate review—was deficient under the first prong
of Strickland. It is clear from the record that trial counsel did not object to the
sufficiency of the curative charge or renew the mistrial motion. See State v. George,
323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911–12 (1996) ("If the trial [court] sustains a
timely objection to testimony and gives the jury a curative instruction to disregard
the testimony, the error is deemed to be cured. No issue is preserved for appellate
review if the objecting party accepts the [court's] ruling and does not
contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative
charge or move for a mistrial." (citations omitted)).
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
As to Strickland's prejudice prong, we find the conduct of the assistant solicitor,
notwithstanding the trial court's curative instruction, substantially undermined
confidence in the outcome of Petitioner's trial. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 ("[To
prove prejudice, t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that,
but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome."). Accordingly, we conclude Petitioner is entitled to
PCR. The PCR court's decision denying relief is hereby
REVERSED.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES and HILL, JJ., concur.