State v. Martin

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Martin

DecidedMay 20, 2010

Docket2010-UP-286

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Martin (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, (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.

Terris L. Martin, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-286
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed May 20, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Terris L. Martin appeals his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, second offense. On appeal, Martin argues the plea court erred in finding his guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the plea court failed to explain to him that the inference of intent to distribute was permissive, not mandatory. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Barton, 325 S.C. 522, 530 n.6, 481 S.E.2d 439, 443 n.6 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea will not be considered on direct appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, 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.

Terris L. Martin, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-286
Submitted May 3, 2010 Filed May 20, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Terris L. Martin appeals his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute marijuana, second offense. On appeal, Martin argues the plea court erred in finding his guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the plea court failed to explain to him that the inference of intent to distribute was permissive, not mandatory. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Barton, 325 S.C. 522, 530 n.6, 481 S.E.2d 439, 443 n.6 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea will not be considered on direct appeal).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack