State v. Robinson

SCREENING MEMORANDUM

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Gary Robinson,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Dillon County

J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-390

Submitted April 21, 2004 – Filed June
21, 2004   

AFFIRMED

Senior Assistant Appellant Defender Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jay E. Hodge, Jr., of Cheraw, for Respondent.

         

PER CURIAM:  Robinson was convicted in December
1998 for armed robbery. He appealed the trial court’s ruling. On remand from
the Court of Appeals, the trial court ruled that Robinson was mentally competent
to stand trial in December 1998 on the charges of armed robbery and was competent
during the adversarial hearing in December 2002.  Robinson appeals.  We affirm
[1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR and the following authorities:  State
v. Weik, 356 S.C. 76, 81, 587 S.E.2d 683, 685 (2002) (internal citation
omitted), adhered to on reh’g State v. Weik, 356 S.C. 382, 581
S.E.2d 834 (2003) (“The test for determining competency to stand trial is whether
the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with
a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational
as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him.”); State
v. Reed, 332 S.C. 35, 39, 503 S.E.2d 747, 749 (1998) (stating the defendant
bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence);
State v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 504-505, 466 S.E.2d 349 (1996) (holding
the trial court's determination of competency will be upheld if it has evidentiary
support and is not against the preponderance of the evidence).

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1]   Because oral argument would not aid the court
in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.