State v. Wylie
Decision Date | 15 August 2012 |
Docket Number | 2012-MO-032 |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Clifford A. Wylie, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Unpublished Opinion
Heard May 22, 2012
Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of Columbia, and Solicitor W Walter Wilkins, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Clifford Wylie was convicted of murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful conduct toward a child. He subsequently was sentenced to life without parole for murder, ten years' imprisonment for unlawful conduct toward a child, and five years' imprisonment for possession of a firearm, all to run concurrent. He argues on appeal the circuit court erred in: (1) determining he was competent to stand trial without first granting a continuance to obtain the full competency report required by Section 44-23-420(A) of the South Carolina Code (Supp 2011)[1]; (2) not granting a continuance so he could procure the full court-ordered report regarding his criminal responsibility[2]; (3) permitting a doctor who did not perform the victim's autopsy to testify about its results, and a psychologist to repeat statements made by Wylie's son, in violation of Wylie's right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment; (4) not finding the psychologist's testimony also was inadmissible hearsay; and (5) sentencing him for possession of a firearm in contravention of Section 16-23-490(A) of the South Carolina Code (2003). We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Competency: State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ; see also State v. Weik, 356 S.C. 76, 81, 587 S.E.2d 683, 685 (2002) ("The defendant bears the burden of proving his lack of competence by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial judge's ruling will be upheld on appeal if supported by the evidence and not against its preponderance."); State v. Bell, 293 S.C. 391, 396, 360 S.E.2d 706, 709 (1987) ().
2. Criminal Responsibility: Mitchell, 286 S.C. at 573, 336 S.E.2d at 151 (defining harmless error); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 17-24-10(B) (2003) (); State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278, 494 S.E.2d 115, 119 (1997) (a defendant may use lay testimony to prove insanity) ; State v. Smith, 298 S.C. 205, 208, 379 S.E.2d 287, 288 (1989) ().
3. Confrontation Clause: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 285, 676 S.E.2d 690, 694 (2009) (); State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333, 563 S.E.2d 315, 318-19 (2002) .
4. Hearsay: State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 199, 682 S.E.2d 275, 280 (Ct. App. 2009) (); State v Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326, 577 S.E.2d 460, 468 (Ct. App. 2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial