Hyman v. State
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Per curiam
The appellant was convicted of murder and armed robbery and received respective sentences of life and twenty-five years imprisonment, to be served consecutively.
Her application for post-conviction relief was denied after a hearing. She appeals from that denial. We affirm.
The appellant asserts representation was ineffective because her trial counsel did not object that the sentences constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This point was not raised in her application or at the hearing and is not properly before us. State v. Newton, 274 S. C. 287, 262 S. E. (2d) 906 (1980).
The appellant argues…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. NewtonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
- Griffin v. WARDEN, CCISupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
- Cummings v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1979
3Cited by12 opinions
- Al-Shabazz v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Drayton v. EvattSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
- Plyler v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992
- Evans v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2005
- Rhodes v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.