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.

Martin v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 17, 2019

Anthony Marquise Martin, Petitioner,
v.
State of South Carolina, Respondent. Appellate Case No. 2016-002458

          Submitted April 15, 2019

          Appeal From Aiken County Robert E. Hood, Circuit Court Judge.

          Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

          Attorney General Alan Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

          KITTREDGE, JUSTICE.

         We granted a writ of certiorari to review the denial of Petitioner Anthony Martin's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We reverse and remand for a new trial.

         Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and criminal conspiracy in Aiken County. Petitioner alleged in his PCR application that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to elicit testimony from Petitioner's mother regarding the specific timeline of Petitioner's purported alibi. Petitioner contended that he was in Atlanta, Georgia, at the time of the robbery in South Carolina. Relief was denied because Petitioner failed to present his mother's testimony at the PCR hearing regarding the alibi defense. Ordinarily, the absence of a purported alibi witness's testimony is fatal, but in this case, counsel admitted they were aware of the specific timeline furnished by the mother, yet failed to introduce it. That testimony, if presented and believed, would have made it impossible for Petitioner to be in Aiken County at the time of the robbery. We grant post-conviction relief and remand for a new trial.

         I.

         Petitioner was convicted of robbing a branch of Bank of America on West Martin Town Road in North Augusta, South Carolina, at 12:20 p.m. on April 23, 2009, along with three codefendants. There was no evidence linking Petitioner to the robbery other than the testimony of the codefendants, who admitted their guilt, cooperated with law enforcement, and implicated Petitioner.

         In his defense, Petitioner presented testimony from two witnesses, one of whom was his mother. At the time of the robbery, Petitioner lived with his mother in Snelville, Georgia, which is approximately thirty miles outside Atlanta. Regarding the day of the robbery, the mother's testimony at trial indicated only that she dropped Petitioner off in the morning at a bus stop in Atlanta. However, the mother had given a statement to trial counsel revealing that she dropped Petitioner off "around 11:15, 11:30" on the day of the robbery. Trial counsel conceded Petitioner's file contained that specific and critical piece of information.[1]Inexplicably, trial counsel did not elicit the precise drop-off time; the jury was left only with the fact that Petitioner was dropped off in Atlanta sometime in the morning.

         During closing arguments, Petitioner's counsel challenged the codefendants' testimony, essentially arguing they were admitted thieves and liars who had changed their story to law enforcement multiple times. Counsel further argued that no other evidence pointed to Petitioner's involvement, such as victim or third-party identification testimony or scientific evidence. However, trial counsel never argued Petitioner had an alibi for the time of the crime. Nevertheless, the jury asked to rehear the alibi testimony. Eventually, the jury found Petitioner guilty.

         The PCR court denied Petitioner relief, finding Petitioner did not present evidence of an alibi defense and Petitioner could not prove prejudice because there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. We granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the PCR court's decision.

         II.

         The State first argues Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof because he did not provide sufficient evidence-the in-person testimony of the alibi witness-at the PCR hearing. Additionally, the State asserts, even if Petitioner provided sufficient evidence, the PCR court correctly found Petitioner ...


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.