State v. Hopkins

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.

Dorian Rosean Hopkins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-002092

Appeal From Lexington County
Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-143
Submitted April 1, 2021 – Filed May 5, 2021

AFFIRMED

James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D. Koutsogiannis, both
of Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, both of
Lexington; and Christopher Brian Lusk, of Crawford &
von Keller, LLC, of Columbia, all for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Dorian Rosean Hopkins appeals his conviction for indecent
exposure and sentence of three years' imprisonment, suspended upon completion of
eighteen months' probation, and requirement he register as a sex offender. On
appeal, Hopkins argues the plea court abused its discretion in ignoring factors laid
out in his expert's report and maintaining that he be required to remain on the sex
offender registry. We hold the plea court properly considered all relevant factors
and made specific findings on the record supporting its decision to require Hopkins
to register as a sex offender. Specifically, the plea court considered the
circumstances of the case, including Hopkins's drug use, his disinterest in mental
health treatment, and his expert's report. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 344,
714 S.E.2d 888, 893 (Ct. App. 2011) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to
review errors of law only and is bound by the [plea] court's factual findings unless
they are clearly erroneous. Thus, on review, the appellate court is limited to
determining whether the [plea court] abused [its] discretion."); State v. Bickham,
381 S.C. 143, 147, 672 S.E.2d 105, 107 (2009) ("An abuse of discretion occurs
when a [plea] court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an
error of law."); id. ("Appellant bears the burden on appeal of showing an abuse of
discretion."); State v. Hicks, 377 S.C. 322, 325, 659 S.E.2d 499, 500 (Ct. App.
2008) ("The authority to change a sentence rests exclusively with the sentencing
[court] and is within [its] discretion."); id. ("A judge or other sentencing authority
is to be accorded very wide discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, and
must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear
on the proper sentence for the particular defendant, given the crime committed.");
S.C. Code Ann. § 23-3-430(C)(14) (Supp. 2020) ("For purposes of this article, a
person who has . . . pled guilty . . . to . . . any of the following offenses shall be
referred to as an offender: . . . a person, regardless of age, who has . . . pled guilty
. . . in this State . . . of indecent exposure . . . is required to register pursuant to the
provisions of this article if the court makes a specific finding on the record that
based on the circumstances of the case the convicted person should register as a
sex offender . . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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