State v. Carruthers

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Carruthers

DecidedJune 8, 2010

Docket2010-UP-301

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Carruthers (State v. Carruthers) 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. Carruthers, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Alan Bruce Carruthers, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-301
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed June 8, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Alan Bruce Carruthers pled guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. He appeals, arguing his guilty plea failed to comply with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Specifically, Carruthers contends the plea court erred in accepting his plea without first ordering an evaluation to determine his mental competency. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (explaining that when the determination of competency is not raised at the time of the guilty plea, it is procedurally barred on appeal); 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 [p]ost-[c]onviction [r]elief.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Alan Bruce Carruthers, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-301
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed June 8, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Alan Bruce Carruthers pled guilty to one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. He appeals, arguing his guilty plea failed to comply with the mandates set forth in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969). Specifically, Carruthers contends the plea court erred in accepting his plea without first ordering an evaluation to determine his mental competency. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (explaining that when the determination of competency is not raised at the time of the guilty plea, it is procedurally barred on appeal); 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 [p]ost-[c]onviction [r]elief.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., THOMAS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Carruthers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carruthers-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack