Hall 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Ernest L. Hall, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2011-187269
Appeal From Anderson County
J. Cordell Maddox, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-114
Heard December 9, 2014 – Filed March 4, 2015
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and
Assistant Attorney General John Walter Whitmire, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Ernest Luther Hall was convicted of murder and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a violent crime. He appeals from the denial and
dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing his trial
counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to obtain a psychological examination of Hall
and (2) failing to request a voluntary manslaughter charge when Hall suffers from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and brain damage. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether Hall's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain a
psychological examination of Hall: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-
93 (1984) (stating to receive relief, a PCR applicant must show (1) counsel was
deficient and (2) counsel's deficiency caused prejudice); Cherry v. State, 300 S.C.
115, 117, 386 S.E.2d 624, 625 (1989) (providing an attorney's performance is not
deficient if it is reasonable under professional norms); Von Dohlen v. State, 360
S.C. 598, 607, 602 S.E.2d 738, 743 (2004) ("Strickland does not require counsel
[to] investigate every conceivable line of mitigating evidence or require the
submission of such evidence in every case . . . ."); Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 233,
417 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1992) (finding trial counsel reasonably relied on his own
perceptions regarding the petitioner's competency and was not deficient for failing
to investigate his mental health); Lee v. State, 396 S.C. 314, 322, 721 S.E.2d 442,
447 (Ct. App. 2011) (finding plea counsel was not deficient for failing to
investigate the petitioner's mental health, even though the petitioner had a history
of mental retardation, because she had no indication of his mental status);
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693 (defining prejudice as a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different).
2. As to whether Hall's trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a
voluntary manslaughter charge when Hall suffers from PTSD and brain damage:
State v. Walker, 324 S.C. 257, 260, 478 S.E.2d 280, 281 (1996) ("Heat of passion
alone will not suffice to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter."); id. ("Both
heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation must be present at the time of the
killing."); State v. Cooley, 342 S.C. 63, 68, 536 S.E.2d 666, 668 (2000) ("In
general, South Carolina has allowed marital infidelity to support a charge of
marital voluntary manslaughter only when the killer finds the other spouse and
paramour in a guilty embrace or flagrantly suggestive situation."); State v. Byrd,
323 S.C. 319, 322, 474 S.E.2d 430, 432 (1996) ("[W]ords alone, however
opprobrious, are not sufficient to constitute a legal provocation.").
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ. concur.