Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mangal v. State

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 30, 2015

Farid A. Mangal, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent

Heard November 3, 2015.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212701. Appeal From Spartanburg County. J. Mark Hayes, II, Trial Court Judge, J. Derham Cole, Post-Conviction Relief Judge.

John R. Ferguson, of Cox Ferguson & Wham, LLC, of Laurens, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, and Assistant Attorney General Alicia A. Olive, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J. SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MCDONALD, J.:

In 2007, Farid A. Mangal was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor, two counts of second-degree CSC, lewd act upon a minor, and incest. He appeals from the denial and dismissal of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to bolstering, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial in response to bolstering, (3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the qualification of a forensic interviewer as an expert, (4) trial counsel's performance as a whole was deficient and prejudicial, (5) the PCR court erred in finding the bolstering issue was not raised, and (6) PCR counsel was ineffective for not sufficiently raising the bolstering issue. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

Victim, who was nineteen years old at the time of the 2007 trial, testified that her father (Petitioner) sexually abused her from the time she was ten years old until she was sixteen. The first instance of alleged abuse occurred when Petitioner took her into a bedroom, forced her to remove her pants, and rubbed his penis around her anal area. Victim stated there was " some sort of penetration" on this occasion, but not full penetration. Victim testified that after such abuse began, it occurred nearly every day when she came home from school. According to Victim, she was fourteen or fifteen the first time full penetration occurred, and Petitioner took her virginity. Victim stated Petitioner used condoms occasionally and once pointed out a freckle on the shaft of his penis. According to Victim, the abuse became more painful and aggressive as she aged. Victim stated she initially disclosed the abuse to her brother (Brother) after she refused Petitioner's advances one night, and Petitioner took out his anger on Brother the next day.

On cross-examination, trial counsel questioned Victim extensively concerning inconsistencies in her story and her dislike for Petitioner's strict parenting methods.[1] Victim acknowledged that once Petitioner was out of the house, she began drinking, smoking, and had to seek counseling. Victim was presented with testimony from a 2005 family court hearing where she stated she began cutting herself because she was unhappy about her accusations against Petitioner. In this prior family court testimony, Victim stated she did not want to get Petitioner in trouble, she just wanted him away from her.

Brother testified there were numerous occasions over the years when Petitioner took Victim into a locked room for twenty or thirty minutes, and Victim would leave the room visibly upset and crying and would go to the bathroom.

Pediatrician Dr. Nancy Henderson testified as an expert " in the examination, diagnosis, and treatment of child sexual abuse." Dr. Henderson testified she examined Victim in July 2004 and discovered a " marked narrowing" on a portion of Victim's hymen, which she believed was " a sign of some type of penetration." During her testimony, the following exchange occurred:

[The State:] Doctor Henderson, do you have an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty based upon your education, training, and experience and based upon your findings on examination of [Victim], whether ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.