Opinion
2022-UP-134 Appellate Case 2019-001430
03-23-2022
The State, Respondent, v. Shaquille Bradon Dozier, Appellant.
Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, all for Respondent.
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.
Submitted January 1, 2022
Appeal From Horry County Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Shaquille Bradon Dozier appeals his convictions for carjacking and failure to stop for a blue light and concurrent sentences of fifteen years' imprisonment and three years' imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Dozier argues the trial court erred in finding he was competent to stand trial. Because the trial court's competency finding had evidentiary support and was not against the preponderance of the evidence, the trial court did not err in finding Dozier was competent to stand trial. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 504, 466 S.E.2d 349, 351 (1996) ("The defendant bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence."); id. at 504-05, 466 S.E.2d at 351 ("The trial court's determination of competency will be upheld if it has evidentiary support and is not against the preponderance of the evidence."); State v. Bell, 293 S.C. 391, 395-96, 360 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1987) ("The test for competency to stand or continue trial is whether the defendant has the sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational, as well as a factual, understanding of the proceedings against him.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
WILLIAMS, C.J, MCDONALD, J, and LOCKEMY, AJ, concur