State v. Dupree ( 2016 )

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.
Derrick D. Dupree, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002442
Appeal From Marlboro County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-442
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 26, 2016
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers, Jr.,
of Bennettsville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 (1975) (holding the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution implicitly guarantees a criminal
defendant the right to proceed to trial pro se); id. at 835 (providing a criminal
defendant "should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-
representation, so that the record will establish that 'he knows what he is doing and
his choice is made with eyes open'" (quoting Adams v. United States ex rel.
McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279 (1942))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 424, 392
S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("Faretta requires the accused be: (1) advised of his right
to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation.");
Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835-36 ("The trial judge had warned Faretta that he thought it
was a mistake not to accept the assistance of counsel, and that Faretta would be
required to follow all the 'ground rules' of trial procedure. We need make no
assessment of how well or poorly Faretta had mastered the intricacies of the
hearsay rule and the California code provisions that govern challenges of potential
jurors on voir dire. For his technical legal knowledge, as such, was not relevant to
an assessment of his knowing exercise of the right to defend himself." (footnotes
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.