In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,


James Edward Lee,        Appellant.

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-073
Submitted January 12, 2004 – Filed February 12, 2004


Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda P. Hagler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to South Carolina Rules of Appellate Practice, Rule 220, and the following authorities:  As to Lee’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel:  McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 175 (1991) (“The Sixth Amendment right . . . is offense specific. It cannot be invoked once for all future prosecutions, for it does not attach until a prosecution is commenced, that is, ‘at or after the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings--whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.’”) (quoting United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 188 (1984)); Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 173 (2001) (holding when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it only encompasses the charged offense and any other offenses that would be considered the same for purposes of double jeopardy); State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 661-62, 552 S.E.2d 745, 757-58 (2001) (adopting Texas v. Cobb); State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 15, 515 S.E.2d 508, 515 (1999) (holding the Sixth Amendment right attaches only “post-indictment”); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 509, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1996) (holding, although defendant was in custody, defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not attached, where he had not been indicted and judicial proceedings had not been initiated).

As to Lee’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination:  State v. Jones, 344 S.C. 48, 58, 543 S.E.2d 541, 546 (2001) (holding short, conclusory statements are insufficient to preserve an issue for appellate review); State v. Colf, 332 S.C. 313, 332, 504 S.E.2d 360, 364 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding a conclusory, two-paragraph argument that cited no authority other than an evidentiary rule was deemed abandoned on appeal).


HEARN, C.J., HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.