State v. Cooper ( 2012 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD
NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Joshua Cooper, Appellant.
__________
Appeal From Clarendon County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
__________
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-421
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed July 11, 2012
__________
AFFIRMED
__________
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of
Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Joshua Cooper appeals the denial of his motion to
vacate his guilty pleas and order a competency evaluation, arguing the trial
court should have ordered a competency evaluation after learning Cooper had
a history of competency, mental health, and mental retardation issues. We
affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
State v. Bickham, 381 S.C. 143, 147, 672 S.E.2d 105, 107 (2009) ("The
withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the trial
[court]."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is
unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law."); State v.
Burgess, 356 S.C. 572, 575, 590 S.E.2d 42, 44 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The
question of whether to order a competency examination falls within the
discretion of the trial [court] whose decision will not be overturned on appeal
absent a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-
23-410 (Supp. 2011) (requiring a trial court to order a competency evaluation
if it has reason to believe a defendant cannot understand the proceedings
against him or assist in his own defense due to a lack of mental capacity);
Burgess, 356 S.C. at 575, 590 S.E.2d at 44 (holding in determining whether
further inquiry into a defendant's fitness to stand trial is warranted, the trial
court should consider factors such as "evidence of his or her irrational
behavior, his or her demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on his or
her competence to stand trial"); State v. Lambert, 266 S.C. 574, 579, 225
S.E.2d 340, 342 (1976) (providing a defendant entering a guilty plea is held
to the same competency standard as a defendant who proceeds to trial).
AFFIRMED.
PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.