In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Orlando Williams

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.

THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In
The Court of Appeals

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Orlando Williams, Respondent.

Appeal
From Charleston County

 R.
Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished
Opinion No. 2012-UP-026  

Heard
December 7, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012

AFFIRMED

Attorney
General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General
William M. Blitch, Jr. all of Columbia, for Appellant.

Appellate
Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant and Appellate Defender Dayne C. Phillips, both of
Columbia; and Gordon Wade Cooper, of Mount Pleasant, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM: The
State appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Orlando
Williams as to whether he is a sexually violent predator, as defined in section
44-48-30(1) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2008).  We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C.
Code Ann. § 44-48-100(A) (Supp. 2008) (requiring the State to establish beyond
a reasonable doubt that a person is a sexually violent predator); Hancock v.
Mid-South Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 802-03 (2009) ("This
Court . . . has consistently held that where the federal standard applies or
where a heightened burden of proof is required, there must be more than a
scintilla of evidence in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment."); SSI Med. Servs., Inc., v. Cox, 301 S.C. 493, 497, 392 S.E.2d 789, 792
(1990) (stating in a summary judgment motion, "[t]he adverse party's
response, including affidavits or as otherwise provided by the rule, must set
forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial"); Nelson
v. Piggly Wiggly Central, Inc., 390 S.C. 382, 390, 701 S.E.2d 776, 780 (Ct.
App. 2010) (stating a non-moving party may not rely on speculation to defeat a
motion for summary judgment); Baughman v. AT&T, 306 S.C.
101, 116, 410 S.E.2d 543, 545-46 (1991) ("'[T]he plain language of
Rule 56(c)[, SCRCP,] mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate
time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial.'" (first alteration by court) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986))).

AFFIRMED.

FEW,
C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.