State v. Troy Burkhart

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Troy Burkhart

DecidedFebruary 17, 2010

Docket2010-UP-131

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Troy Burkhart (State v. Troy Burkhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Troy Burkhart, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

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.

Troy Burkhart, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-131
Submitted January 4, 2010 Filed February 17, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Troy Burkhart appeals his convictions and sentences for murder, arguing the trial court committed reversible error under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and State v. Fuller, 337 S.C. 236, 523 S.E.2d 168 (1999), by failing to conduct an adequate hearing in response to Burkhart's request to relieve his counsel and proceed pro se. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Fuller, 337 S.C. at 241, 523 S.E.2d at 170 (stating that if the request to proceed pro se is made after trial has begun, the grant or denial of the right to proceed pro se rests within the sound discretion of the trial court); State v. Reed, 332 S.C. 35, 41, 503 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1998) (holding the request to proceed pro se must be clearly asserted by the defendant prior to trial); State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 473, 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding an appellant must assert both error and prejudice to warrant reversal on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Troy Burkhart, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County
J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-131
Submitted January 4, 2010 Filed February 17, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Troy Burkhart appeals his convictions and sentences for murder, arguing the trial court committed reversible error under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and State v. Fuller, 337 S.C. 236, 523 S.E.2d 168 (1999), by failing to conduct an adequate hearing in response to Burkhart's request to relieve his counsel and proceed pro se. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Fuller, 337 S.C. at 241, 523 S.E.2d at 170 (stating that if the request to proceed pro se is made after trial has begun, the grant or denial of the right to proceed pro se rests within the sound discretion of the trial court); State v. Reed, 332 S.C. 35, 41, 503 S.E.2d 747, 750 (1998) (holding the request to proceed pro se must be clearly asserted by the defendant prior to trial); State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 473, 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding an appellant must assert both error and prejudice to warrant reversal on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Troy Burkhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-troy-burkhart-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack