Stacey L. FORD, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent

Supreme Court of South Carolina1994-03-21No. 24037

314 S.C. 245442 S.E.2d 604

Summary · law.co

Holding. Although trial counsel's rejection of an alibi charge fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, the court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief because Ford failed to establish a reasonable probability that the trial outcome would have been different given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Stacey Ford was convicted of conspiracy, kidnapping, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on strong forensic evidence, including DNA matching and blood type analysis linking him to semen found on the victim, testimony of a witness who heard him and his co-defendant plan the crime, and recovery of his identification by the co-defendant shortly after the assault. Ford filed for postconviction relief, claiming his trial attorney was ineffective for refusing to present an alibi instruction to the jury, despite Ford's testimony and two witnesses placing him at a nightclub during most of the relevant time period. The trial court dismissed the postconviction application.

The appellate court acknowledged that counsel's rejection of an alibi charge when a defendant claims to have been elsewhere constitutes deficient performance under the standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims. However, the court found that Ford failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that a different verdict would have resulted had counsel accepted the alibi instruction. Given the overwhelming forensic and testimonial evidence of guilt—particularly the DNA match occurring in only one in 23 million African-Americans and the recovery of Ford's identification in the co-defendant's possession immediately after the crime—the court concluded that the verdict would likely have been the same regardless of counsel's error.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether rejection of an alibi instruction constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel
Whether overwhelming forensic evidence precludes a finding of reasonable probability of prejudicial impact from counsel's error
Application of the two-prong Strickland test to postconviction relief claims

Procedural posture

The postconviction relief court dismissed Ford's application following a hearing, and the appellate court granted certiorari to review whether the lower court erred in finding counsel's performance was effective.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Harwell, Chief Justice:

We granted certiorari to review the dismissal of Stacey Ford’s (Ford) application for postconviction relief (PCR). Ford contends that the PCR judge erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel. We disagree and affirm.

I. FACTS

Ford was arrested and indicted for conspiracy, kidnapping, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. At trial, the victim testified that shortly after 1:00 a.m. on November 1,1987, she was riding home from a nightclub with Archie Fraser (Fraser) when a man wearing a rubber Halloween mask rose out of the back seat. The man pointed a gun at the victim and told Fraser to follow his instructions or he would kill the victim. The man then instructed Fraser to drive onto a small dirt road where he forced Fraser to have intercourse with the victim at gunpoint and then forced the victim to perform fellatio and have intercourse with him. Thereafter, the man instructed Fraser to drive back to a dark area a short distance from the nightclub and let him out. The entire episode lasted approximately 30 to 40 minutes.

Although the victim was unable to identify Ford as the assailant, the State presented test results which showed that the genetic systems in Ford’s DNA matched the genetic systems extracted from the semen found on the victim’s clothing and that this match would only occur in 1 in 23 million African-Americans. A forensic serologist also testified that the ABO blood type and secretor analysis of blood and body fluid samples indicated that the perpetrator was a group O secretor, which matched Ford’s blood type. In addition, one witness testified that he overheard Fraser and Ford conspire to commit the crime. Another witness testified that when Fraser took the victim to the police station after the rape, Fraser gave the witness a wallet which contained identification bearing Ford’s name.

In his defense, Ford testified that he was at the club from 12:40 a.m. till about 2:45 a.m. on the morning of the rape. Two witnesses also testified that they were at the club with Ford during that time period, except for a five- or ten-minute interval when Ford was either outside or in the bathroom. A jury convicted Ford of conspiracy, kidnapping, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. We affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. State v. Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S.E. (2d) 781 (1990).

Ford thereafter filed a PCR application alleging, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for declining the trial judge’s offer of an alibi charge. The PCR judge dismissed the application after a hearing, finding that counsel’s rejection of an alibi charge was reasonable. We granted certiorari.

II. DISCUSSION

Ford contends that the PCR judge erred in ruling that he received effective assistance of counsel. We disagree.

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, petitioner must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed. (2d) 674 (1984); Geter v. State, 305 S.C. 365, 409 S.E. (2d) 344 (1991).

It is well settled that counsel’s rejection of an alibi charge when the defendant claims that he was in another place at the time of the commission of the criminal act constitutes deficient representation under an objective standard of reasonableness. Riddle v. State, — S.C. —, 418 S.E. (2d) 308 (1992). Accordingly, the PCR judge erred in ruling that counsel’s rejection of the alibi instruction was reasonable. However, we find that Ford has failed to establish a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had counsel’s performance not been deficient. The evidence at trial established that the genetic systems in Ford’s DNA matched the genetic systems extracted from the semen found on the victim’s clothing, that Ford’s blood type matched the perpetrator’s, that Ford and Fraser were overheard planning the assault, and that Fraser was in possession of a wallet containing Ford’s identification immediately after the assault. In light of this overwhelming evidence of Ford’s guilt, we find no reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had counsel accepted the alibi charge. See Geter, 305 S.C. at 367,409 S.E. (2d) at 346 (reasonable probability of a different result does not exist when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt). Because the petitioner has failed to show prejudice from counsel’s error, we affirm the denial of PCR.

Affirmed as modified.

Chandler, Finney, Toal and Moore, JJ., concur.

Fraser also was convicted of conspiracy, kidnapping, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct at the trial.