Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

275 S.C. 314

269 S.E.2d 774

State v. Hallock

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided September 15, 1980

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1980-09-15

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1991

2 state decisions

Relies on Johnson v. Zerbst · State v. Dixon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Cttriam:

¶1 Appellant was indicted on charges of assault with intent to kill (two counts) and carrying a pistol (one count). Upon commencement of the second day of trial appellant sought permission to proceed pro se, retaining appointed counsel in *315 an advisory capacity. Stating only that appellant must abide by the rules, the presiding judge granted the request. The jury subsequently found appellant guilty of all charges and consecutive sentences of twenty (20) years on each assault with intent to kill charge and one (1) year on the weapons charge imposed.

¶2 The records presently before this Court indicate that the presiding judge failed to properly determine whether appellant’s request to proceed pro se constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel. See State v. Dixon, 269 S. C. 107, 109, 236 S. E. (2d) 419, 420 (1977) citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938). Accordingly, pursuant to the procedure employed in Dixon, supra, this case is remanded to the lower court for determination of whether the waiver was intelligently made.

¶3 Remanded.

/275/sc/314 · .json · Public domain