Jonathan Duncan v. State

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

Jonathan W. Duncan, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000279

Appeal From Oconee County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-362
Submitted September 1, 2022 – Filed September 28, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Lillian Loch Meadows, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that
Petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we
grant certiorari on this issue and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue
pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the plea court erred by failing to conduct a
competency hearing pursuant to section 44-23-410(A) of the South Carolina Code
(2018) and State v. Blair1 prior to accepting his guilty pleas. See § 44-23-410
("Whenever a judge of the circuit court . . . has reason to believe that a person on
trial before him, charged with the commission of a criminal offense . . . , is not fit
to stand trial because the person lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings
against him or to assist in his own defense as a result of a lack of mental capacity,
the judge shall: (1) order examination of the person by two examiners designated
by the Department of Mental Health if the person is suspected of having a mental
illness . . . ."). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the plea court did not abuse its discretion by failing to sua sponte conduct
a competency hearing. See State v. White, 364 S.C. 143, 147, 611 S.E.2d 927, 929
(Ct. App. 2005) ("The statutory injunction, that an examination be ordered when
the circuit judge 'has reason to believe' that a defendant is not mentally competent
to stand trial, involves the exercise of the discretion of the trial judge in evaluating
the facts presented on the question of competency." (quoting State v. Drayton, 270
S.C. 582, 584, 243 S.E.2d 458, 459 (1978))); id. ("Thus, despite the mandatory
language contained in § 44-23-410, the decision of whether to order a competency
examination is within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be
overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion."). Petitioner underwent
three mental health examinations and was adjudged competent before he pled
guilty. Further, plea counsel not only believed Petitioner understood his rights, he
also agreed there was nothing in the evaluations that would cause him to question
Petitioner's competency to enter a plea. Moreover, Petitioner appeared to
understand the plea proceeding based on his responses to the questions from the
plea court. See State v. Hall, 312 S.C. 95, 99, 439 S.E.2d 278, 281 (1994) (holding
the trial court did not err by failing to conduct a competency hearing because "[t]he
evidence of record negate[d] the necessity" and noting the State's psychologist
determined the defendant was competent and the defendant himself indicated he
understood the proceedings). Thus, based on the record before this court, we hold
the plea court did not abuse its discretion by failing to order a competency hearing
prior to Petitioner entering his guilty pleas.

1
275 S.C. 529, 273 S.E.2d 536 (1981).
AFFIRMED. 2

GEATHERS, MCDONALD, and HILL, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.