Home/Supreme Court of South Carolina/State v. Hazel

State v. Hazel

271 S.E.2d 602, 275 S.C. 392, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 481
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedOctober 27, 1980
Docket21318
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 271 S.E.2d 602 (State v. Hazel) 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
State v. Hazel, 271 S.E.2d 602, 275 S.C. 392, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 481 (S.C. 1980).

Opinions

Per Curiam:

Appellant Wanda Jean Hazel challenges the denial of a request to withdraw her plea of guilty to kidnapping, for which she was sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant claims that her plea was the result of improper advice from her attorney and misleading statements by the trial judge regarding the sentence for kidnapping. We agree.

Section 16-3-910 of the S. C. Code of Laws (Cum. Supp. 1979) provides that a person convicted of kidnapping "shall suffer the punishment of life imprisonment unless sentenced for murder as provided in § 16-3-20.” (Emphasis supplied.) This provision is mandatory. Upon acceptance of a plea of guilty to kidnapping a trial judge has no discretion to impose a lesser sentence or suspend a portion of the life sentence and impose probation. See S. C. Code of Laws, § 24-21-410 (1976).

Here, the record indicates that while consulting with appellant regarding a possible plea of guilty to kidnapping, trial counsel advised her that the presiding judge might exercise discretion in passing sentence. Indeed, during the [394]*394plea examination itself, the judge informed appellant merely that he “could” impose a “maximum” sentence of life imprisonment. Only following acceptance of the plea, and just prior to sentencing, did the judge state that kidnapping carried a mandatory life term. At this point, counsel moved unsuccessfully to withdraw the plea on the basis that she had improperly advised appellant regarding sentencing.

It is elementary that in order for a defendant to knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty, he must have a full understanding of the consequences of his plea. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. L. Ed. (2d) 274 (1969). Upon the facts in this case, appellant’s plea was not knowing because it was entered without an understanding of the mandatory punishment for the offense to which she was pleading.1 It was thus a plea entered in ignorance of its direct consequence, and was therefore invalid.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed; the matter is remanded to- the trial court with directions to allow appellant to withdraw her plea.

Littlejohn, J., dissents.

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

Related

McCullough v. Dodkin
D. South Carolina, 2020
Hyman v. State
723 S.E.2d 375 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2012)
Burnett v. State
576 S.E.2d 144 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2003)
Rollison v. State
552 S.E.2d 290 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2001)
Anderson v. State
535 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Knox v. State
530 S.E.2d 887 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Roddy v. State
528 S.E.2d 418 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2000)
Pittman v. State
524 S.E.2d 623 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1999)
Smith v. State
494 S.E.2d 626 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1997)
Dover v. State
405 S.E.2d 391 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1991)
Vittitoe v. State
556 So. 2d 1062 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Riddle
292 S.E.2d 795 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1982)
Peeler v. State
283 S.E.2d 826 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1981)
State v. Hazel
271 S.E.2d 602 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 S.E.2d 602, 275 S.C. 392, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hazel-sc-1980.