State v. Julius Bowman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Julius Bowman

DecidedNovember 9, 2009

Docket2009-MO-058

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Julius Bowman (State v. Julius Bowman) 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. Julius Bowman, (S.C. 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Julius Bowman, Appellant.

Appeal From York County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2009-MO-058
Heard November 5, 2009 Filed November 9, 2009

AFFIRMED

Jerry Leo Finney, of The Finney Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CUIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Julius Bowman pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine, 28 grams or more, but less than 100 grams, second offense, and received a negotiated sentence of twelve years in prison. Bowman subsequently moved to vacate his plea, arguing it had been unknowingly and involuntarily made. The plea judge denied the motion, and Bowman filed this direct appeal.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 652 S.E.2d 444 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding a defendant has no constitutional right to a plea bargain); United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (holding the constitution does not require the prosecutor to disclose all information that might be useful to a defendant, such as that relating to informants, prior to entering a guilty plea, as this information is related to the fairness of a trial, not the voluntariness of a plea); State v. Bickham, 381 S.C. 143, 147, 672 S.E.2d 105, 107 (2009) ("The withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the trial judge.") (citing State v. Riddle, 278 S.C. 148, 292 S.E.2d 795 (1982)).

AFFIRMED.

WALLER, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.

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 Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Julius Bowman, Appellant.

Appeal From York County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Memorandum Opinion No. 2009-MO-058
Heard November 5, 2009 Filed November 9, 2009

AFFIRMED

Jerry Leo Finney, of The Finney Law Firm, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CUIAM: Pursuant to a plea agreement, Julius Bowman pled guilty to trafficking in cocaine, 28 grams or more, but less than 100 grams, second offense, and received a negotiated sentence of twelve years in prison. Bowman subsequently moved to vacate his plea, arguing it had been unknowingly and involuntarily made. The plea judge denied the motion, and Bowman filed this direct appeal.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 652 S.E.2d 444 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding a defendant has no constitutional right to a plea bargain); United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (holding the constitution does not require the prosecutor to disclose all information that might be useful to a defendant, such as that relating to informants, prior to entering a guilty plea, as this information is related to the fairness of a trial, not the voluntariness of a plea); State v. Bickham, 381 S.C. 143, 147, 672 S.E.2d 105, 107 (2009) ("The withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the trial judge.") (citing State v. Riddle, 278 S.C. 148, 292 S.E.2d 795 (1982)).

AFFIRMED.

WALLER, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, PLEICONES, BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Julius Bowman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-julius-bowman-sc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack