Does South Carolina's Defense of Indigents Act, SC Code of laws 17-3-5 et seq., without rational basis, deny equal protection between criminal defendants who choose to proceed pro se and those who accept state-chosen-and-appointed counsel?

Does South Carolina take pro se criminal defendants, indigent or not, private property without just compensation in its failed efforts to convict them of crimes?

If a sovereign uses Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or its equivalent to compensate a civil defendant for expenses incurred in defeating a frivolous civil claim, does equal protection require the same sovereign to use add a similar provision to its criminal rules so as to render one exonerated of false and frivolous criminal charges whole at the end of the criminal trial without requiring the exonerated criminal defendant to sue separately?

Whether South Carolina's Defense of Indigents Act denies equal protection between criminal defendants who choose to proceed pro se and those with state-appointed counsel