State v. Cook

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Cook

DecidedMarch 5, 2009

Docket2009-UP-126

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Cook (State v. Cook) 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. Cook, (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Charles M. Cook, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-126
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 5, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles M. Cook appeals his guilty plea to accessory after the fact, arguing the plea judge erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was no factual basis for the plea. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the sufficiency of a guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, 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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Charles M. Cook, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-126
Submitted March 2, 2009 Filed March 5, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Charles M. Cook appeals his guilty plea to accessory after the fact, arguing the plea judge erred in accepting his guilty plea because there was no factual basis for the plea. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the sufficiency of a guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Cook, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-scctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack