Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2011-193948 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-186
05-08-2013
The State, Respondent, v. Eric Spratt, Appellant.
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, 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.
Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sosbee, 371 S.C. 104, 111, 637 S.E.2d 571, 574 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[A]n uncounseled conviction that does not result in actual imprisonment may be used to enhance a subsequent conviction."); State v. Wickenhauser, 309 S.C. 377, 380, 423 S.E.2d 344, 346 (1992) ("[W]hen a defendant is not actually incarcerated on a prior uncounseled conviction, that offense may be used for enhancement."); id. at 380, 423 S.E.2d at 346 (holding the sentencing court properly used defendant's prior uncounseled conviction to enhance his punishment for a subsequent offense when the prior sentence was suspended upon probation and defendant was not imprisoned); State v. Payne, 332 S.C. 266, 272, 504 S.E.2d 335, 338 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[O]nce the State has proven the prior conviction[,] . . . the defendant has the burden of proving it is constitutionally defective or otherwise invalid by a preponderance of the evidence."); id. at 271, 504 S.E.2d at 337 (noting the Due Process Clause does not require a state to adopt one procedure for determining the burden of proof instead of another on the basis that it may produce more favorable results for the defendant). AFFIRMED.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.