State v. Thacker

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.

Samuel J.
Thacker, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-284

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 20, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General
Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Samuel J.
Thacker appeals his guilty plea for failure to stop for a blue light.  Thacker
argues the plea court abused its discretion in accepting his guilty plea
without first ordering an evaluation of his mental competence.  Thacker avers
his mental illness should have concerned the plea court regarding his
competency and its impact on his ability to enter a guilty plea.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 44-23-410(A) (Supp. 2009) (holding a trial
judge must order a competency examination if the defendant "lacks the
capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own
defense"); State v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 441-42, 641 S.E.2d 912, 920
(Ct. App. 2007) (providing a defendant's normal behavior and understanding of
proceedings at pretrial and trial may support the trial court's decision to not
order a mental competency examination); State v. Burgess, 356 S.C. 572,
575, 590 S.E.2d 42, 44 (Ct. App. 2003) (identifying the three factors to be
considered in determining whether further inquiry into a defendant's fitness to
stand trial is warranted as: (1) evidence of irrational behavior; (2) demeanor
at trial; and (3) prior medical opinion regarding ability to stand trial). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT,
and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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