State v. Hightower
| Decision Date | 07 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2018-000822,Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-261 |
| Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Antoine Lakida Hightower, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Joshua A. Edwards, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
Appellant Antoine Lakida Hightower appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, kidnapping, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He argues the circuit court erred by: (1) denying his pretrial motion for a psychiatric evaluation; (2) declining to order a competency evaluation; (3) and admitting prior statements given by the victim and another witness who also testified at the trial. We affirm.
On August 23, 2017, Tymel McCullough, Maurice Taylor, and two female acquaintances were socializing in a motel room in York County. McCullough was loitering outside the room when Appellant asked to borrow a lighter. McCullough responded that he had a lighter but it was not on his person. McCullough then walked back to his room, and Appellant followed. McCullough went inside his room, but he and Taylor did not grant Appellant entry into the room. After knocking on the door a few times, Appellant kicked it in. Appellant entered the room brandishing what looked like a handgun1 and proceeded to ask for McCullough.2 McCullough ran out of the room, but Appellant caught him and battered him with the handgun. McCullough picked up a nearby brick and hit Appellant hard enough to momentarily escape his clutches. McCullough ran back to the room, but the door would not close, so Appellant reentered the room and resumed his assault on McCullough. Appellant hit McCullough with the brick multiple times in the neck area until McCullough became temporarily paralyzed and then unconscious. Appellant then grabbed an item off a nightstand and/or drawer and left the room. He was arrested shortly thereafter about a mile and a half from the motel.
On December 7, 2017, a York County grand jury indicted Appellant for kidnapping, first-degree burglary, ABHAN, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. On March 27, 2018, Appellant appeared in court for a hearing to express his desire for a new attorney due to his dissatisfaction with the State's plea offer. After his counsel requested that the court let Appellant "air out whatever grievances he ha[d] and decide whether or not they[] were legitimate enough for [counsel] to be relieved," the circuit court engaged Appellant in the following colloquy:
After the court explained to Appellant his level of exposure and what the plea offer by the State meant in relation to his charges, Appellant asked for a new attorney because he felt the time offered was "too much." Appellant stated: "All I did was get into a fight[,] and the situation got out of hand, and the guy [is] locked up right now, so why should I have to sign for fifteen years?" The court found there was no basis to relieve Appellant's court-appointed attorney.
On April 4, 2018, Appellant appeared before the court again on a motion for a continuance and a motion for a mental evaluation. Appellant's counsel advised that he was compelled to ask for the mental evaluation after discovering Appellant suffered from schizophrenia during the prior hearing before the court. The circuit court then engaged Appellant in the following colloquy:
The court found that Appellant was competent and that there was no basis to believe Appellant's ability to understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of the incident was affected by his mental state. After Appellant's counsel noted that the court did not ask Appellant any questions regarding the incident and that he had not been on his medication at the time of the incident, the court stated the fact that Appellant was off his medication in and of itself was not enough to compel an evaluation. The court noted that " judges ha[d] been just very recently cautioned on . . . signing . . . for mental evaluations." After granting Appellant's motion for a continuance and denying the motion for a mental evaluation, proceedings concluded for the day.
Appellant's trial took place over the course of two days beginning on April 23, 2018. On day two, the State called Taylor as a witness. Taylor testified that he had known Appellant prior to the incident and had multiple interactions with him—including dinner with him at his house. Taylor stated that on the night of the attack, Appellant continuously knocked on the door, but Taylor told him he could not come inside because the motel policy did not allow visitors at that hour. Eventually, Taylor stated, Appellant kicked in the door and entered the room carrying the gun. Taylor testified that Appellant asked for McCullough by his nickname, "Gold," and Taylor feared Appellant would harm him and the female occupants. Taylor stated McCullough fled the room and returned moments later bleeding profusely. He noted that Appellant then entered the room and hit McCullough with a brick several times in the head, neck, back, and body. Taylor stated that while Appellant was attacking McCullough, Appellant exclaimed: According to Taylor, McCullough replied: "You're not going to get it this way." Taylor asserted that Appellant exited the room after grabbing an item off the nightstand and/or from the drawer.
Further, the State called McCullough as a witness. McCullough testified that he first saw Appellant at McCullough's father's place of work, Ruby Tuesday. McCullough recounted the events of the night in question in lockstep with Taylor's recitation—although he provided more details regarding Appellant's assault on him.
Appellant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to twenty-five years for burglary and kidnapping, twenty years for ABHAN, and five years for the weapons charge. This appeal followed.
The decision whether to order a mental health evaluation to assess a defendant's criminal responsibility or competency to stand trial is within the discretion of the circuit court. Monahan v. State, 365 S.C. 130, 133, 616 S.E.2d 422, 424 (2005); State v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 916 (Ct. App. 2007). Likewise, the admission of evidence is within the discretion of the circuit court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Foster, 354 S.C. 614, 620-21, 582 S.E.2d 426, 429 (2003). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." Colden, 372 S.C. at 435, 641 S.E.2d at 917.
Appellant argues the circuit court erred by denying his motion for a mental health evaluation because the denial deprived him of the opportunity to determine the possible existence of an insanity defense. Appellant contends that because the circuit court knew Appellant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was off his medication at the time of the offense, it was error to deny the evaluation. The State counters that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion because Appellant failed to produce any evidence to warrant an evaluation, i.e., documentation of Appellant's treatment or mental health history. Further, the State highlights the fact that Appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial