James D. Robertson, Petitioner v. State of South Carolina, Respondent — Toal, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Toal dissents, arguing that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance does not constitute a sufficient reason to permit a successive post‑conviction relief application and that the majority’s reading of §17‑27‑160(B) is erroneous; he would affirm the PCR court’s dismissal. The Court affirmed the dismissal. Chief Justice Pleicons filed a concurrence in part and dissent in part, agreeing with the majority on Martinez and the statutory analysis but rejecting the need for a Strickland prejudice showing and urging appointment of qualified counsel.