State v. Greene

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 8, 2016
• Docket: 2016-UP-256
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.

Roderick Greene, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002067

Appeal From Colleton County Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-256 Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Samuel, 414 S.C. 206, 211, 777 S.E.2d 398, 401 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The question of whether court appointed counsel should be discharged is a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial [court]. Only in a case of abuse of discretion will this [c]ourt interfere." (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 414, 405 S.E.2d 377, 380 (1991))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision of the trial [court] is based upon an error of law or upon factual findings that are without evidentiary support." (citing State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); Prince v. State, 301 S.C. 422, 423-24, 392 S.E.2d 462, 463 (1990) ("To establish a valid waiver of counsel . . . the accused [must] be: (1) advised of his right to counsel; and (2) adequately warned of the dangers of self-representation."); Wroten v. State, 301 S.C. 293, 294, 391 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1990) ("While a specific inquiry by the trial [court] expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial [court's] advice but rather the defendant's understanding."); id. ("If the record demonstrates the defendant's decision to represent himself was made with an understanding of the risks of self- representation, the requirements of a voluntary waiver will be satisfied."); State v. Cash, 309 S.C. 40, 43, 419 S.E.2d 811, 813 (Ct. App. 1992) ("Factors the courts have considered in determining if an accused had sufficient background to understand the disadvantages of self-representation include: (1) the accused's age, educational background, and physical and mental health; (2) whether the accused was previously involved in criminal trials; . . . (4) whether he was represented by counsel before trial or whether an attorney indicated to him the difficulty of self- representation in his particular case; (5) whether he was attempting to delay or manipulate the proceedings; (6) whether the court appointed stand-by counsel; (7) whether the accused knew he would be required to comply with the rules of procedure at trial . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.