Duckson v. State, 355 S.C. 596

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Alphonso Duckson’s application for post-conviction relief after his parole was revoked. The majority held that an ineffective-assistance claim concerning counsel at a parole revocation hearing was not cognizable under the PCR statute because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to that administrative proceeding and Duckson did not allege a due process violation. Justice Waller concurred in the result, concluding that Duckson could assert the claim but had not established ineffective assistance.

Holdings

1. An ineffective-assistance claim based solely on the Sixth Amendment is not cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act when it arises from a parole revocation hearing, because parole revocation is an administrative rather than criminal proceeding and no Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies. A due-process-based right to counsel may exist, but petitioner did not allege that his parole revocation violated due process or was otherwise unlawful.
2. The PCR court's alternative finding that Duckson failed to establish ineffective assistance of parole revocation counsel was supported by evidence and warranted affirmance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an ineffective-assistance claim arising from representation at a parole revocation hearing is cognizable under South Carolina's Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act when the petitioner does not allege a due-process violation rendering the parole revocation unlawful.
2. Whether petitioner proved that parole revocation counsel rendered ineffective assistance.

Disposition

affirmed