United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
an inmate with the South Carolina Department of Corrections,
seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. The petition was filed pro se on January 23,
Respondent filed a return and motion for summary judgment on
May 16, 2019.As the Petitioner is proceeding pro
se, a Roseboro order was filed on May 17, 2019,
advising Petitioner that he had thirty-four (34) days to file
any material in opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he
failed to respond adequately, the motion for summary judgment
may be granted, thereby ending his case. Thereafter, on May
28, 2019, Petitioner filed supplemental documentation in
support of his Petition. He then filed a memorandum in
opposition to summary judgment on May 30, 2019.
matter is now before the Court for disposition.
was indicted in Florence County in September 2009 for lewd
act on a minor and criminal sexual conduct with a minor,
first degree [Indictment No. 09-GS-21-1350]. (R.pp. 328-329).
Petitioner was represented by Vick Meetz, Esquire. After a
trial by jury on June 21-23, 2010, Petitioner was convicted
as charged and sentenced to concurrent sentences of thirty
(30) years imprisonment for criminal sexual conduct with a
minor, first degree, and fifteen (15) years imprisonment, for
lewd act on a minor. (R.pp. 1-245).
filed a timely direct appeal on which he was represented by
Breen Richard Stevens, Esquire. Petitioner raised the
following issue in his direct appeal:
Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a mistrial
after the State solicited testimony from an expert witness
which the court ruled was inadmissible?
See Court Docket No. 15-2, p. 4.
October 31, 2012, the South Carolina Court of Appeals denied
the appeal in its entirety. State v. Singletary,
2012-UP-589 (S.C.Ct. App. filed October 31,
2012)(unpublished). (R.pp. 332-333). The remittitur was
issued on November 16, 2012. See Court Docket No.
April 30, 2013, Petitioner filed an application for
post-conviction relief (“APCR”) in state circuit
court. Singletary v. State of South Carolina, No.
2013-CP-21-1159. (R.pp. 247-253). Petitioner raised the
following grounds in his APCR:
6th Amend-Coleman vs. Thompson 51 U.S. 722 . . .
Strickland v. State - Martinez v. Ryan - Strickland v.
a. The right to a fair trial - ambiguous sentence
b. The right to present everdince [sic] on my behalf -
c. The right for me to have witnesses on my behalf
d. Stence [sic] ¶ 0-15 the judge gave me 15 yrs.
Stence[sic] ¶ 0-30 the judge gave me 30 yrs. Stencing
[sic] was extreme.
was represented in his APCR by Jonathan Waller, Esquire, and
an evidentiary hearing was held on Petitioner's
application on October 9, 2014. (R.pp. 275-317). After the
hearing, both parties filed post-hearing memoranda. (R.pp.
254-261, 268-274). By order dated March 25, 2015, and filed
April 1, 2015, the PCR judge denied Petitioner's
requested relief in its entirety. (R.pp. 318-327).
appealed the denial of his APCR. Petitioner's PCR
appellate counsel, LaNelle Durant of the South Carolina
Commission on Indigent ...