State v. Mitchell

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Mitchell

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

Docket2004-UP-629

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Mitchell (State v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, (S.C. Ct. App. 2004).

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.

Bucky Mitchell, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-629
Submitted December 1, 2004 Filed December 14, 2004

DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bucky Mitchell appeals the lower courts acceptance of his guilty plea. We dismiss. [1]

FACTS

In December 2000, a Richland County grand jury indicted Bucky Mitchell on four counts: two kidnapping charges and two charges of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree. Prior to opening statements at trial, Mitchell entered a negotiated plea of guilty but mentally ill on a single count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and the State dismissed the other charges. The lower court accepted Mitchells plea and sentenced him to seven years. This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Mitchell argues that his guilty plea failed to comply with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), which requires guilty pleas be voluntarily and intelligently made. We find that Mitchell failed to properly preserve the issue below. Mitchell made no objection at the plea proceeding. Failure of a defendant to assert that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982). The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea that was not objected to at the time of its entry is through post-conviction relief. In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 477 S.E.2d 713 (1996).

DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT 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.

Bucky Mitchell, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-629
Submitted December 1, 2004 Filed December 14, 2004

DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bucky Mitchell appeals the lower courts acceptance of his guilty plea. We dismiss. [1]

FACTS

In December 2000, a Richland County grand jury indicted Bucky Mitchell on four counts: two kidnapping charges and two charges of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the second degree. Prior to opening statements at trial, Mitchell entered a negotiated plea of guilty but mentally ill on a single count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor and the State dismissed the other charges. The lower court accepted Mitchells plea and sentenced him to seven years. This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Mitchell argues that his guilty plea failed to comply with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), which requires guilty pleas be voluntarily and intelligently made. We find that Mitchell failed to properly preserve the issue below. Mitchell made no objection at the plea proceeding. Failure of a defendant to assert that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982). The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea that was not objected to at the time of its entry is through post-conviction relief. In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 477 S.E.2d 713 (1996).

DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Mitchell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-scctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack