Opinion ID: 1244757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incompetence in Fact

Text: Due process prohibits the conviction of a person who is mentally incompetent. Bishop v. United States , 350 U.S. 961, 76 S.Ct. 440, 100 L.Ed. 835 (1956). This right cannot be waived by a guilty plea. Pate v. Robinson , 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed. (2d) 815 (1966). The test of competency to enter a plea is the same as required to stand trial. State v. Lambert , 266 S.C. 574, 225 S.E. (2d) 340 (1976). The accused must have sufficient capability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Carnes v. State , 275 S.C. 353, 271 S.E. (2d) 121 (1980). In a PCR action, the petitioner bears the burden of proof and is required to show by a preponderance of the evidence he was incompetent at the time of his plea. SCRCP Rule 71.1(e) (formerly Sup. Ct. Rule 50(4). Any evidence of probative value to support the post conviction judge's factual findings is sufficient to uphold those findings on appeal. Webb v. State , 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E. (2d) 839 (1984). We find the lower court's determination that the petitioner did not meet his burden of proof is supported by the evidence. The excerpts from the medical records are of little probative value. The opinions given are contradictory and do not directly relate to the petitioner's ability to consult with his attorney or to understand the proceedings. Additionally, the basis of the opinions is not provided. Further, the testimony of the petitioner's pastor and defense attorney along with the petitioner's responses at his plea hearing support the petitioner's competence.