emphasizes that “[n]o particular set of detailed rules for counsel’s conduct” is appropriate, but rather that courts must consider “whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances.” 466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The state court could reasonably conclude that counsel’s duty to consult regarding whether petitioner should file an appeal does not arise until the petitioner indicates an interest in appealing. This is all the more true where, as here, the petitioner’s plea of guilty limits the scope of issues available for appeal, and the only grounds he expressed to his lawyer for dissatisfaction depend on his unsupported allegation that the trial judge might have been prejudiced against him. See Garrett v. State, 320 S.C. 353, 465 S.E.2d 349, 350 (1995) (<HOLDING>). The state PCR court’s decision that Frazer’s
holding there is no unfair prejudice when the prior act is no more sensational or disturbing than the evidence admitted directly supporting the crimes with which the defendant was charged holding that if evidence is improperly admitted but other evidence establishes essentially the same facts there is no prejudice to the accused and no reversible error holding that a sentence is not excessive if it is within statutory limitations and there are no facts supporting an allegation of prejudice against the defendant holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that it is not