State v. Bird

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedApril 3, 2007
Docket2007-UP-145
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Bird (State v. Bird) 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
State v. Bird, (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Parks Bird, Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
 Honorable D. A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2007-UP-145
Submitted April 2, 2007 – Filed April 3, 2007


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare,  of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Parks Bird pled guilty to armed robbery and attempted armed robbery.  The trial court sentenced Bird to ten years incarceration for armed robbery and ten years incarceration, concurrent, for attempted armed robbery.  Bird appeals these sentences.  We affirm[1] 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) (“Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of Post-Conviction Relief.”); State v. Bradley, 263 S.C. 223, 226, 209 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974) (holding appellate court will not consider claim that guilty plea was involuntarily entered if defendant fails to raise it in trial court).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, and KITTREDGE, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., 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

Related

State v. Bradley
209 S.E.2d 435 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1974)
State v. McKinney
292 S.E.2d 598 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Bird, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bird-scctapp-2007.