In the Matter of Kevin Wright

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Kevin Lamar
Wright, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001551

Appeal From Charleston County
Jennifer B. McCoy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-452
Submitted November 1, 2022 – Filed December 14, 2022

AFFIRMED

James Kristian Falk, of Falk Law Firm, LLC, of
Charleston, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kevin Wright appeals the circuit court's order denying his
request for a jury trial to determine his fitness for release from the South Carolina
Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program. On appeal, Wright argues the
circuit court erred by finding that "no probable cause [existed] to believe [his]
mental abnormality or personality disorder ha[d] so changed [that] he was safe to
be at large and, if released, was not likely to commit [additional] acts of sexual
violence." We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: In re Care & Treatment of Tucker, 353 S.C. 466, 470, 578 S.E.2d 719,
721 (2003) ("On review, the appellate court will not disturb the hearing court's
finding on probable cause unless found to be without evidence that reasonably
supports the hearing court's finding."); id. at 470, 578 S.E.2d at 722 ("In a [section]
44-48-110 probable cause hearing, the committed person has the burden of
showing the hearing court that probable cause exists to believe that his mental
condition has so changed that he is safe to be released."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 44-48-110 (2018) ("If the court determines that probable cause exists to believe
that the person's mental abnormality or personality disorder has so changed that the
person is safe to be at large and, if released, is not likely to commit acts of sexual
violence, the court must schedule a trial on the issue.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., THOMAS, J., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

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