State v. Lee

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

James Edward
Lee,        Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-073

Submitted January 12, 2004 – Filed February
12, 2004

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant
to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities: 
As to Lee’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel:  McNeil v. Wisconsin,
501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991) (“The Sixth Amendment right . . . is offense specific.
It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach
until a prosecution is commenced, that is, ‘at or after the initiation of adversary
judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary
hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’”) (quoting United States
v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 (1984)); Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162,
173 (2001) (holding when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it only
encompasses the charged offense and any other offenses that would be considered
the same for purposes of double jeopardy); State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637,
661-62, 552 S.E.2d 745, 757-58 (2001) (adopting Texas v. Cobb); State
v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 15, 515 S.E.2d 508, 515 (1999) (holding the Sixth
Amendment right attaches only “post-indictment”); State v. George, 323
S.C. 496, 509, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1996) (holding, although defendant was in
custody, defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached, where
he had not been indicted and judicial proceedings had not been initiated).

As to Lee’s Fifth Amendment protection against
self-incrimination:  State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 58, 543 S.E.2d
541, 546 (2001) (holding short, conclusory statements are insufficient to preserve
an issue for appellate review); State v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 332, 504
S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding a conclusory, two-paragraph argument
that cited no authority other than an evidentiary rule was deemed abandoned
on appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.