United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tremain Orlando Davis, a self-represented state inmate of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections, filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. This matter comes before the court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)
(D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on the
respondent's motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.)
Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), Davis was advised of the summary judgment and
dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he
failed to respond adequately to the respondent's motion.
(ECF No. 20.) Davis filed a response in opposition (ECF No.
22),  and the respondent filed a reply (ECF No.
23). Having carefully considered the parties' submissions
and the record in this case, the court concludes that the
respondent's motion for summary judgment should be
granted, and Davis's Petition should be denied.
was indicted in November 2010 in Greenville County for
possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime,
armed robbery, and murder (2010-GS-23-9191, -9192, -9193).
(App. at 285-96, ECF No. 18-1at 287-98.) Davis was
represented by Alex Stalvey, Esquire, and on November 8, 2010
pled guilty as charged. The circuit court sentenced Davis to
life imprisonment for murder, thirty years' imprisonment
for armed robbery, and five years' imprisonment for
possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime, all
sentences to be served concurrently. (App. at 197, ECF No.
18-1 at 199.)
filed a direct appeal, but the South Carolina Court of
Appeals dismissed his appeal after an
Anders review. Davis filed an application for
post-conviction relief (“PCR”), which was denied
by the state circuit court. The South Carolina Supreme Court
then denied Davis's petition for a writ of certiorari.
This action followed.
exhausted his state remedies, Davis asserts the following
issues in the instant Petition for a writ of habeas corpus:
Ground One: Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel, a Sixth Amendment Violation. Supporting
facts: Counsel convincingly assured Petitioner that
he would receive the thirty (30) year sentence offered by the
State, if he pled guilty rather than continuing on with the
second day of trial.
Ground Two: Unreasonable determination by
the PCR Court, based on the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Summary Judgment Standard
judgment is appropriate only if the moving party “shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the [moving party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party may support or refute
that a material fact is not disputed by “citing to
particular parts of materials in the record” or by
“showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse
party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the
fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1). Rule 56 mandates entry of
summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element
essential to that party's case.” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact,
the evidence of the non-moving party is to be believed and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in favor of the
non-moving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). However, “[o]nly
disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law will properly preclude the entry ...