State v. Drayton, 20669
| Decision Date | 20 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20669,20669 |
| Citation | 270 S.C. 582,243 S.E.2d 458 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. William M. DRAYTON, Jr., Appellant. |
John D. Delgado, W. Gaston Fairey, and John M. Young, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant, charged with murder, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and received a sentence of thirty (30) years imprisonment. The homicide occurred on March 28, 1976 and, two days later, on March 30th, appellant was, pursuant to Section 44-23-410 of the 1976 Code of Laws, committed to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health for an evaluation of his mental capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense. After an extension of the examination period for an additional fifteen (15) days, the examiners certified that appellant was mentally capable of assisting in his defense. Subsequently, the presiding judge, after a hearing on the issue of competency, issued an order on June 25, 1976 finding that appellant was mentally fit to stand trial. There was no appeal from that order. Appellant was brought to trial, before a different presiding judge, about two and one- half (21/2) months later, on September 7, 1976, with no further mental examination or request that such be made.
The sole question argued on this appeal concerns the allegation that the trial judge should have, on his own motion, ordered a second hearing on appellant's competency to stand trial. Appellant argues that the failure to order a second competency hearing constituted an abuse of discretion and deprived him of his constitutional right to due process of law and a fair trial. We find no merit in these contentions and affirm.
Code Section 44-23-410 provides for examinations to determine the mental capacity of persons charged with crime to stand trial. The pertinent portion of this section requires that an examination of a defendant shall be ordered
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 such 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 statutory injunction, that an examination be ordered when the circuit judge "has reason to believe" that a defendant is not mentally competent to stand...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanders
...a second competency hearing must be affirmed unless the court abused its discretion in light of new evidence); State v. Drayton, 270 S.C. 582, 243 S.E.2d 458, 459 (1978) ("The record fails to show additional facts to warrant the trial judge in directing a further examination and hearing.");......
-
Dang v. Commonwealth
...for abuse of discretion); People v. Morgan, 87 N.Y.2d 878, 638 N.Y.S.2d 942, 662 N.E.2d 260, 261 (1995) (same); State v. Drayton, 270 S.C. 582, 243 S.E.2d 458, 459 (1978) (same); Garza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 693, 694 (Tex.Crim.App.1975) (decision of whether to order competency hearing reviewe......
-
State v. Colden
...S.E.2d 857, 859, (1957)). The ordering of a competency examination is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Drayton, 270 S.C. 582, 584, 243 S.E.2d 458, 459 (1978); State v. Singleton, 322 S.C. 480, 483, 472 S.E.2d 640, 642 (Ct.App.1996). The refusal to grant such an examination......
-
The State v. Motts
...of continued competency once a judicial determination of a defendant's competency has been established. See State v. Drayton, 270 S.C. 582, 243 S.E.2d 458 (1978) (holding failure of trial judge to order further examination and a hearing to determine defendant's competency to stand trial did......