State v. Shanekia R. Garvin

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.

Shanekia Renee Garvin, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001452

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-033
Submitted November 1, 2024 – Filed January 29, 2025

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Buchanan and Octavia Yvonne Wright, both
of South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and
Pardon Services, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Shanekia Renee Garvin appeals the revocation of her probation.
On appeal, she argues the probation court failed to (1) determine she had been
advised of her right to counsel, (2) verify she was warned of the dangers and
disadvantages of self-representation, and (3) confirm she validly waived her right
to counsel before she appeared at her probation hearing pro se. We affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the probation court did not err in revoking Garvin's probation because she
knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to counsel with the knowledge of her
right to counsel and the dangers of self-representation. See State v. Samuel, 422
S.C. 596, 602, 813 S.E.2d 487, 490 (2018) ("Whether a defendant has knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel is a mixed question of law
and fact which appellate courts review de novo."); id. ("Specifically, we review a
circuit judge's findings of historical fact for clear error; however, we review the
denial of the right of self-representation based upon those findings of fact de
novo."); id. (finding an appellate court "must consider the defendant's testimony,
history, and the circumstances of his decision, as presented to the circuit judge at
the time the defendant made his request"); State v. Thompson, 355 S.C. 255, 261,
584 S.E.2d 131, 134 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of
our Constitution guarantee that a person brought to trial in any state or federal
court must be afforded the right to the assistance of counsel before he can be
validly convicted and punished by imprisonment." (quoting Faretta v. California,
422 U.S. 806, 807 (1975))); Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213, 215, 410 S.E.2d 921, 922
(1991) ("The right to counsel attaches in probation revocation hearings."). We find
Garvin was sufficiently informed of her right to counsel because she signed a
notice of her probation hearing less than three months before the hearing and the
probation court confirmed she signed the notice that "included [her] right to have
an attorney represent [her]." See State v. Bryant, 383 S.C. 410, 414, 680 S.E.2d
11, 13 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is the trial court's responsibility to determine whether
there was a knowing and intelligent waiver [of the right to counsel] by the
accused."); id. at 416, 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding the "probation court's colloquy
adequately informed Bryant of her right to counsel"); State v. McLauren, 349 S.C.
488, 494, 563 S.E.2d 346, 349 (Ct. App. 2002) ("In the absence of a specific
inquiry by the trial judge addressing the disadvantages of a pro se defense . . . the
appellate court will look to the record to determine whether [the defendant] had
sufficient background or was apprised of his rights by some other source.").

Moreover, we hold the notice of hearing and Garvin's prior two appearances before
the probation court sufficiently warned her of the dangers and disadvantages of
appearing pro se. See Thompson, 355 S.C. at 262-63, 584 S.E.2d at 135 ("While a
specific inquiry by the trial judge expressly addressing the disadvantages of a pro
se defense is preferred, the ultimate test is not the trial judge's advice but rather the
defendant's understanding."); Bryant, 383 S.C. at 417, 680 S.E.2d at 14 (finding
Bryant was adequately apprised of the dangers and disadvantages of appearing pro
se from the evidence of her signature of the probation notice, her two prior
appearances before the probation court, and having been represented by counsel
for her other probation violations).
AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and MCDONALD and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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