Hines v. State

South Carolina Court of Appeals · 2021 · Criminal Law

Reporter Citation Pending

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawguilty pleawaiver of counselself-representationBrady disclosureFarettaBradyGibson test

Facts

After Hines asked to relieve retained counsel, the circuit court told him no more counsel would be appointed and that if he did not hire another attorney, the court would address self-representation. Two days later, Hines appeared pro se at a guilty plea hearing, where the court advised him of his right to counsel, warned that proceeding without a lawyer was dangerous, explained the charge and sentencing range, and accepted his waiver and negotiated guilty plea to a fourteen-year sentence. Before the plea, the State had served notice of intent to seek life without parole if the case went to trial and had allowed defense counsel, but not Hines personally, to view a video of the controlled drug purchase after counsel signed a protective order. At the PCR hearing, both Hines and former counsel described the video as showing circumstances that appeared inculpatory rather than exculpatory.

Issue

Did the State's refusal to let Hines personally view the video before his guilty plea amount to misconduct or a Brady violation that rendered the plea involuntary? Did Hines knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to counsel before pleading guilty?

Rule

A Brady-based challenge to a guilty plea requires proof that the evidence was favorable to the accused, known to or possessed by the prosecution, suppressed by the prosecution, and material to guilt or punishment. Disclosure to defense counsel may satisfy Brady under the circumstances, and inculpatory evidence is not favorable for Brady purposes. For waiver of counsel, the accused must be advised of the right to counsel and adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation; in the guilty-plea setting, the Sixth Amendment is satisfied when the court informs the defendant of the nature of the charge, the right to counsel regarding the plea, and the allowable punishment range, and the full record may be examined to determine whether the defendant acted with eyes open.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Devin Mercer pleaded guilty to cocaine distribution after the prosecutor let Mercer’s retained lawyer review a body-camera video under a protective order but refused to let Mercer personally watch it before the plea. At post-conviction review, both Mercer and his former lawyer testify the video appeared to show Mercer exchanging a packet for cash.

Mercer argues his plea was involuntary because the prosecution committed a Brady violation by denying him personal access to the video. What is the best answer?

Explanation. A defendant who pleaded guilty may attack the plea’s voluntariness through an alleged Brady violation only by proving the Brady/Gibson elements, including that the evidence was favorable and suppressed by the prosecution. Here, the video was described as inculpatory, so it was not favorable. And because defense counsel was allowed to review it, the prosecution did not suppress it within the meaning of Brady under these circumstances. Personal inspection by the defendant is not categorically required. (Derived from Hines v. State (n.d.).)