Bonnette v. State

282 S.E.2d 597, 277 S.C. 17, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 486
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedSeptember 2, 1981
Docket21558
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 282 S.E.2d 597 (Bonnette v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bonnette v. State, 282 S.E.2d 597, 277 S.C. 17, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 486 (S.C. 1981).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant pleaded guilty to breaking into a motor vehicle and larceny and was sentenced to fifteen (15) years’ imprisonment. He now appeals the denial, after a hearing, of his *18 post-conviction relief application. Appellant alleges the post-conviction judge erred in ruling appellant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, and contends without that hearing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain his plea.

Section 22-5-320, South Carolina Code of Laws (1976), in effect at the time in question, establishes appellant’s right to a preliminary hearing upon proper demand. We have held failure to conduct a properly demanded preliminary hearing deprives a court of general sessions of jurisdiction. State v. Porcher, 273 S. C. 507, 257 S. E. (2d) 505 (1979).

It is uncontested that the request by trial counsel in the present case was properly made to the magistrate. The preliminary hearing was scheduled but later postponed. Appellant then proceeded with plea negotiations which resulted in charges against his wife being nol prossed. At tire time appellant entered his guilty .plea, he did not inform the trial court he had previously requested and still desired a preliminary hearing. Trial counsel for appellant testified he believed the guilty plea process had the effect of waiving appellant’s right to a preliminary hearing.

Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and may be implied from circumstances indicating an intent to waive. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938); 92 C. J. S. Waiver, p. 1062 (1955). Acts inconsistent with the continued assertion of a right, such as a failure to insist upon the right, may constitute waiver. Id. p. 1063. A preliminary hearing can be waived by appellant’s failure to request the hearing, failure to comply with statutory requirements for the request or failure to comply with statutory requirements for the request or failure to appear as scheduled, at least through his attorney. State v. Wheeler, 259 S. C. 571, 193 S. E. (2d) 515 (1972); Blandshaw v. State, 245 S. C. 385, 140 S. E. (2d) 784 (1965); State v. Rabens, 79 S. C. 542, 60 S. E. 442 (1908); Section 22-5-320, South Carolina Code of Laws (Cum. Supp. 1980).

*19 We find appellant’s plea negotiations and silence before the trial court concerning his desire for a preliminary hearing constitute evidence of waiver. Therefore, the any evidence standard of review for post-conviction cases is met. Dixon v. State, 279 S. E. (2d) 605 (S. C. 1981). Appellant’s dissatisfaction with his sentence does not negate his conduct before entering the guilty plea.

Accordingly, we affirm the lower court’s ruling that appellant waived his right to a preliminary hearing prior to entering his guilty plea.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Barnes
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2020
In Re Workman
373 B.R. 460 (D. South Carolina, 2007)
Campbell, Inc. v. Northern Insurance Co. of New York
337 F. Supp. 2d 764 (D. South Carolina, 2004)
Canal Insurance v. Caldwell
524 S.E.2d 416 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1999)
Provident Life & Accident Insurance v. Driver
451 S.E.2d 924 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1994)
Hyload, Inc. v. Pre-Engineered Products, Inc.
417 S.E.2d 622 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1992)
South Carolina National Bank v. Westpac Banking Corp.
678 F. Supp. 596 (D. South Carolina, 1987)
Lyles v. BMI, Inc.
355 S.E.2d 282 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1987)
Elders v. Parker
332 S.E.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1985)
Sanders v. State
314 S.E.2d 319 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1984)
Freeman v. McBee
313 S.E.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
State v. McClure
289 S.E.2d 158 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1982)
O'Neil v. State
285 S.E.2d 552 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 S.E.2d 597, 277 S.C. 17, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonnette-v-state-sc-1981.