From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Torrence

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 3, 1994
317 S.C. 45 (S.C. 1994)

Summary

recognizing that the Singleton test was to be applied to a determination of whether a capital defendant was competent to waive appellate proceedings

Summary of this case from State v. Motts

Opinion

November 3, 1994


ORDER

Appellant, Michael Rian Torrence, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his convictions, but reversed his sentence of death and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding. State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991). Torrence was resentenced to death, and counsel filed this appeal on his behalf. In response to the filing of this appeal, Torrence advises this Court that he does not wish to appeal his sentence and asks his appeal be dismissed. After considering the briefs and oral arguments, the matter is remanded for a determination of Torrence's present competence to waive appeal.

A capital defendant may, constitutionally, waive the right of general appeal. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S.Ct. 1717, 109 L.Ed. 2d 135 (1990); Gilmore v. Utah, 429 U.S. 1012, 97 S.Ct. 436, 50 L.Ed. 2d 632, reh'g denied, 97 S.Ct. 655 (1976); see also State v. Dodd, 120 Wn.2d 1, 838 P.2d 86 (1992). However, such a waiver may not be found unless the Court first determines the defendant is competent and his decision is knowing and voluntary. Id. See also Cole v. State, 101 Nev. 585, 707 P.2d 545 (1985); Judy v. State, 275 Ind. 145, 416 N.E.2d 95 (1981).

This Court recognizes that S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-25 (1985) provides for mandatory review of Torrence's sentence of death, as well as any errors by way of general appeal. State v. Shaw, 273 S.C. 194, 255 S.E.2d 799, cert. denied 444 U.S. 957 100 S.Ct. 437, 62 L.Ed.2d 329 (1979). In light of our remand, we do not presently address the scope of such a review.

At oral argument, this Court, realizing that we are not a fact finding court, nevertheless conducted an inquiry to ascertain the knowing/voluntary nature of Torrence's request to withdraw his appeal. A full record of those proceedings is preserved.

Counsel for Torrence asserts that Torrence is not presently competent to waive his appeal, and the record before us contains no evidence as to Torrence's present state of competency. Accordingly, as we are unable to adequately review the matter, we remand to the circuit court for a competency hearing.

Upon remand, the circuit court shall conduct a full hearing allowing the introduction of testimony, exhibits, and evidence, to provide a full record for this Court's evaluation. Additionally, we instruct the trial court that the standard to be applied in determining Torrence's competency to waive his appeal is that enunciated in Singleton v. State, ___ S.C. ___, 437 S.E.2d 53 (1993). Singleton sets forth the standard of competency required to execute a capital defendant, to wit: whether the defendant can understand the nature of the proceedings, what he or she was tried for, the reason for the punishment, and whether the convicted defendant possesses sufficient capacity or ability to rationally communicate with counsel. Accordingly, Torrence may not be determined competent unless the hearing reveals that he meets this standard.

The test is not, however, whether the defendant in fact cooperates with counsel, but whether he has sufficient mental capacity to do so. State v. Bell, 293 S.C. 391, 360 S.E.2d 706 (1987). Although a capital defendant's waiver of appeal has been upheld upon a showing that he/she has the capacity to understand the choice between life and death and to knowingly and intelligently waive any and all rights to appeal his/her sentence, Grasso v. State, 857 P.2d 802 (Okla.Crim.App. 1993); Franz v. State, 296 Ark. 181, 754 S.W.2d 839 (1988), we find the more stringent standard of Singleton appropriate.

Finally, although we have conducted an in depth inquiry to ascertain whether Torrence is knowingly waiving his rights, we instruct the trial court to conduct another such colloquy to ensure that Torrence persists in his desire to abandon this appeal.

The matter is remanded to circuit court. The issues raised by counsel on Torrence's behalf shall be held in abeyance pending a determination of competency.

Remanded.

/s/ A. Lee Chandler C.J.

/s/ Henry F. Floyd A.A.J.

/s/ Jean H. Toal A.J.

/s/ James E. Moore A.J.

/s/ John H. Waller A.J.


Summaries of

State v. Torrence

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Nov 3, 1994
317 S.C. 45 (S.C. 1994)

recognizing that the Singleton test was to be applied to a determination of whether a capital defendant was competent to waive appellate proceedings

Summary of this case from State v. Motts
Case details for

State v. Torrence

Case Details

Full title:The State of South Carolina, Respondent v. Michael Rian Torrence, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Nov 3, 1994

Citations

317 S.C. 45 (S.C. 1994)
451 S.E.2d 883

Citing Cases

State v. Motts

Subsequently, this Court issued an order remanding the matter to the trial judge, Circuit Court Judge Larry…

Reed v. Ozmint

See In re Stays of Execution in CapitalCases, 321 S.C. 544, 471 S.E.2d 140 (1996); Roberts v.Moore, 332 S.C.…