In the Interest of Edward V.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

In the Interest of Edward V.

DecidedDecember 11, 2006

Docket2006-UP-404

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Interest of Edward V. (In the Interest of Edward V.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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 Edward V., (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

In the Interest of Edward V., a Juvenile under the age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenwood County
Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-404
Submitted December 1, 2006 Filed December 11, 2006

AFFIRMED

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: On September 23, 2004, Edward V. pled guilty to criminal contempt in family court for failing to follow a school attendance order. The family court judge found Edward to be in contempt and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for ninety days. Edward argues on appeal that his guilty plea did not comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding that absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through post-conviction relief); In the Interest of Arisha K.S., 331 S.C. 288, 296, 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (affirming a thirteen-year-old juveniles guilty plea because her counsel did not object to the guilty plea and thus the case law mandated affirmance).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, STILWELL, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

In the Interest of Edward V., a Juvenile under the age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenwood County
Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-404
Submitted December 1, 2006 Filed December 11, 2006

AFFIRMED

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: On September 23, 2004, Edward V. pled guilty to criminal contempt in family court for failing to follow a school attendance order. The family court judge found Edward to be in contempt and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for ninety days. Edward argues on appeal that his guilty plea did not comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding that absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through post-conviction relief); In the Interest of Arisha K.S., 331 S.C. 288, 296, 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (affirming a thirteen-year-old juveniles guilty plea because her counsel did not object to the guilty plea and thus the case law mandated affirmance).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, STILWELL, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the Interest of Edward V., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-edward-v-scctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack