State v. McKinney

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. McKinney

292 S.E.2d 598, 278 S.C. 107, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 362

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 9, 1982

Docket21726

StatusPublished

Cited by61 cases

This text of 292 S.E.2d 598 (State v. McKinney) 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. McKinney, 292 S.E.2d 598, 278 S.C. 107, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 362 (S.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery and was sentenced to nine (9) years’ imprisonment, suspended upon the service of three (3) years and five (5) years’ probation. Appellant now alleges his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. We dismiss the appeal for the reason set forth below.

Appellant failed to assert before the trial court that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 274 (1969). In State v. Bradley, 263 S. C. 223, 209 S. E. (2d) 435 (1974), we held failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. We now extend that holding to include the unknowing nature of a plea, especially where, as in the present case, a defendant is represented by counsel. Our refusal to hear this issue on direct appeal is consistent with the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection. State v. Sullivan, S. C. 282 S. E. (2d) 838 (1981). That rule can be applied to federal constitutional claims. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 53 L. Ed. (2d) 594 (1977).

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 Post-Conviction Relief.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery and was sentenced to nine (9) years’ imprisonment, suspended upon the service of three (3) years and five (5) years’ probation. Appellant now alleges his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. We dismiss the appeal for the reason set forth below.

Appellant failed to assert before the trial court that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 274 (1969). In State v. Bradley, 263 S. C. 223, 209 S. E. (2d) 435 (1974), we held failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. We now extend that holding to include the unknowing nature of a plea, especially where, as in the present case, a defendant is represented by counsel. Our refusal to hear this issue on direct appeal is consistent with the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection. State v. Sullivan, S. C. 282 S. E. (2d) 838 (1981). That rule can be applied to federal constitutional claims. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 53 L. Ed. (2d) 594 (1977).

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 Post-Conviction Relief.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 S.E.2d 598, 278 S.C. 107, 1982 S.C. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinney-sc-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack