John Wallace Hayward (SC)

The Vogel Robbery

On November 25, 2002, Mr. Harry Vogel, a Domino’s deliveryman, was working in Richland County, SC, when two armed men wearing ski masks approached and robbed him of approximately thirty dollars. The robbery was observed by an unarmed, off-duty police officer who followed the vehicle driven by the robbers and got the tag number. Realizing they had been followed, Vogel’s robbers ditched the getaway car, which was soon recovered and processed by Richland County Sheriff’s deputies. During a search of the vehicle, two guns and two ski masks were taken into evidence. No DNA analysis was performed on either of the guns or ski masks, and law enforcement’s disposition of that evidence remains unknown.

The getaway car was traced back to a cousin of Mr. Hayward. Although registered in the cousin’s name, Mr. Hayward was the primary driver of the automobile. Investigators also obtained a statement from the co-defendant in the case, who implicated Mr. Hayward in the robbery. He was arrested and indicted on April 23, 2003, for the Vogel robbery as well as additional Richland County bank robbery, as well as ten charges from the adjoining county of Lexington, SC. All ten of the Lexington County charges stemmed from a single incident.

Faced with a combined total of a dozen charges in Richland and Lexington Counties, Mr. Hayward acquiesced in the advice of appointed counsel and pled guilty to all twelve charges. The pleas were taken in a single plea hearing in Richland County on December 1, 2003. Counsel’s advice to Mr. Hayward was predicated on counsel’s belief that Mr. Hayward could avoid a life without parole (LWOP) sentence by pleading guilty to all charges at one time. As a result of the global plea, Mr. Hayward was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of three hundred twenty-five (325) years.

Post Conviction Relief

On December 8, 2006, Mr. Hayward filed an Application for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) claiming he had received ineffective assistance of counsel for the global plea. Following an evidentiary hearing on March 21, 2008, the PCR Court issued a written order dated April 8, 2008, granting Mr. Hayward full relief and vacating all sentences. The S.C. Attorney General filed an appeal, and the South Carolina Supreme Court (SCSC) affirmed the vacating of the sentences on the Lexington County charges but reversed the PCR Court’s ruling on the Richland County charges.  That decision resulted in the reinstatement of the two and consecutive sentences of thirty years, for a total of sixty. All of the Lexington charges were eventually dismissed and have been recently expunged.

Innocence Claim

Although included in the multi-case plea Mr. Hayward initially entered, Mr. Hayward has always maintained his innocence as to the Vogel robbery. He only pled to the charge due to the advice of his appointed attorney. Mr. Hayward asserts, and has consistently asserted, that he loaned the car to his co-defendant before the Vogel robbery, and the co-defendant and another person committed the robbery. The authenticity of that claim of actual innocence has been established by a recent affidavit from the co-defendant, who claims officers coerced him into giving the statement implicating Mr. Hayward in the robbery.

Center Involvement

Following an investigation and assessment, and based on the co-defendant’s affidavit, NCCAI decided to provide pro bono representation to Mr. Hayward in support of his actual innocence claim. As the SCSC had prohibited Mr. Hayward from filing any new post-conviction claims, the Center had to first petition the SCSC for a stay of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to newly discovered evidence and leave to file a Motion for a New Trial on Mr. Hayward’s behalf.  The SCSC granted leave to file on June 20, 2024. A Motion for a New Trial was filed on July 15, 2024.

After successfully having Mr. Hayward’s previously dismissed charges expunged from his record, the Center filed an Amended New Trial Motion. The Motion is currently pending. While awaiting the State’s response to the Motion and the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing, the Center is continuing to investigate other possible evidentiary avenues that could bolster Mr. Hayward’s actual innocence claim.

* The work on this case was funded in part by a grant from the SC Bar Foundation.