State v. Motts, 391 S.C. 635

Motts was convicted in 1997 of armed robbery and murder and sentenced to life and 25 years; later killed his cell-mate in 2005 at Perry Correctional Institution and confessed.
State sought the death penalty based on Motts's prior murder convictions; jury found death sentence appropriate and the trial court imposed it.
Motts attempted to waive direct appeal shortly after sentencing; this Court remanded to determine competency to waive and whether waiver was knowing and voluntary.
Court-appointed psychiatrists found Motts competent to waive his direct appeal; Motts answered questions demonstrating understanding of proceedings and death sentence.
This Court held Motts competent to waive and that the waiver was knowing and voluntary; it also held the death sentence not excessive or disproportionate and rejected a court-ordered psychiatric interview immediately prior to execution absent indicia of incompetency.
Court clarified that Motts cannot waive this Court’s statutorily mandated sentence review under § 16-3-25(C); proportionality review remains with the Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to waive appeal	Motts is competent to waive; must be carefully examined under Singleton standard.	Waiver valid if Motts understands proceedings and can communicate with counsel.	Motts competent and waiver knowingly and voluntarily.
Waiver of sentence review under § 16-3-25(C)	Passaro/Torrence precedent allows waiver of direct appeal and possibly sentence review.	Statutory sentence review cannot be waived by Motts.	Motts may waive direct appeal but cannot waive this Court's mandatory sentence review.
Proportionality of death sentence	Death sentence supported by prior murder, single aggravating factor, and harsh conduct.	Sentence not excessive or disproportionate in light of crime and similar cases.	Death sentence affirmed as proportionate.
Need for court-appointed psychiatrist immediately before execution	Competency can change; a pre-execution psychiatric evaluation is prudent.	No statutory duty to order immediate pre-execution interview absent indicia of incompetency; existing procedures suffice.	No duty to order a psychiatric interview absent indicia of incompetency; procedures ensure competency.

Singleton v. State, 313 S.C. 75 (1993) (two-prong test for competency to be executed)
Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462 (2008) (remand for competency hearing before waiver of appeals)
Hughes v. State, 367 S.C. 389 (2006) (remand for competency determination when waiving appellate rights)
Reed v. Ozmint, 374 S.C. 19 (2007) (comprehensive review framework for competency and delivery of voting questions)
Torrence, 317 S.C. 45 (1994) (Singleton standard applied to competency to waive appellate proceedings)
Passaro, 350 S.C. 499 (2002) (whether sentence review can be waived; footnote on § 16-3-25(C))
Lindsey, 372 S.C. 185 (2007) (proportionality considerations for death sentence)
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of the insane; competency standard framework)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (present mental state governs execution competency; may review competency before execution)
Shaw, 273 S.C. 194 (1979) (statutory death-penalty procedure structured to ensure review)