In the Interest of Antonio H.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

In the Interest of Antonio H.

477 S.E.2d 713, 324 S.C. 120, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 176

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedOctober 28, 1996

Docket24506

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 477 S.E.2d 713 (In the Interest of Antonio H.) 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

In the Interest of Antonio H., 477 S.E.2d 713, 324 S.C. 120, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 176 (S.C. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ opinion in In The Interest of Antonio H., 319 S.C. 395, 461 S.E.2d 825 (Ct.App.1995). We reverse.

This case involves the guilty plea of an eleven year old minor to petit larceny, use of a vehicle without permission, and violation of house arrest. 1 Subsequent to his guilty plea on these charges, he was brought before a different judge on an unrelated charge of criminal sexual conduct. At that time, the solicitor advised the court that a competency evaluation performed after the CSC charge was filed revealed the minor suffered mild mental retardation. The state then stipulated that the minor was incompetent and that it would nolle prosse the charge. The judge found the minor was not competent to stand trial on the CSC charge.

Thereafter, a dispositional hearing was held on the earlier plea to petit larceny, et al. Although counsel advised the court of the finding of incompetency on the CSC charge, no motion for a competency hearing was made, nor any other relief sought. The minor was sentenced to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate period, not to exceed his twenty first birthday.

*122 The sole issue raised to the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court erred in failing to make a determination of the minor’s competency to enter his guilty plea. However, that issue was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the judge at the dispositional hearing. 2 Accordingly, the issue was procedurally barred. The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea which is not objected to at the time of its entry is through post conviction relief. Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 417 S.E.2d 594 (1992); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982).

The Court of Appeals nonetheless went on to hold that the judge at the dispositional hearing should have ordered a competency hearing to determine whether the minor was competent to be sentenced. As this was not the issue presented to it, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing it. Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995); Connolly v. People’s Life Ins., 299 S.C. 348, 384 S.E.2d 738 (1989); State v. Felder, 290 S.C. 521, 351 S.E.2d 852 (1986).

Accordingly, the judgment below is

REVERSED.

1

. The minor turned 12 years old prior to the dispositional hearing.

2

. Moreover, there was no evidence of incompetence at the time of the plea.

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

PER CURIAM:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ opinion in In The Interest of Antonio H., 319 S.C. 395, 461 S.E.2d 825 (Ct.App.1995). We reverse.

This case involves the guilty plea of an eleven year old minor to petit larceny, use of a vehicle without permission, and violation of house arrest. 1 Subsequent to his guilty plea on these charges, he was brought before a different judge on an unrelated charge of criminal sexual conduct. At that time, the solicitor advised the court that a competency evaluation performed after the CSC charge was filed revealed the minor suffered mild mental retardation. The state then stipulated that the minor was incompetent and that it would nolle prosse the charge. The judge found the minor was not competent to stand trial on the CSC charge.

Thereafter, a dispositional hearing was held on the earlier plea to petit larceny, et al. Although counsel advised the court of the finding of incompetency on the CSC charge, no motion for a competency hearing was made, nor any other relief sought. The minor was sentenced to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate period, not to exceed his twenty first birthday.

*122 The sole issue raised to the Court of Appeals was whether the trial court erred in failing to make a determination of the minor’s competency to enter his guilty plea. However, that issue was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the judge at the dispositional hearing. 2 Accordingly, the issue was procedurally barred. The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea which is not objected to at the time of its entry is through post conviction relief. Jeter v. State, 308 S.C. 230, 417 S.E.2d 594 (1992); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982).

The Court of Appeals nonetheless went on to hold that the judge at the dispositional hearing should have ordered a competency hearing to determine whether the minor was competent to be sentenced. As this was not the issue presented to it, the Court of Appeals erred in addressing it. Smith v. Phillips, 318 S.C. 453, 458 S.E.2d 427 (1995); Connolly v. People’s Life Ins., 299 S.C. 348, 384 S.E.2d 738 (1989); State v. Felder, 290 S.C. 521, 351 S.E.2d 852 (1986).

Accordingly, the judgment below is

REVERSED.

1

. The minor turned 12 years old prior to the dispositional hearing.

2

. Moreover, there was no evidence of incompetence at the time of the plea.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.E.2d 713, 324 S.C. 120, 1996 S.C. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-antonio-h-sc-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack