Hughey v. State, 19125

• Decision Date: 09 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 19125,19125
• Citation: 177 S.E.2d 553,255 S.C. 155
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Charles J. HUGHEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

Page 553

177 S.E.2d 553

255 S.C. 155

Charles J. HUGHEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.

No. 19125.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Thomas L. Hughston, Jr., Greenwood, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and John P. Wilson, Columbia, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

In two separate indictments the appellant, Charles J. Hughey, was charged (1) with larceny and receiving stolen goods (a Chevrolet from a Claude Metts), and (2) with armed robbery, larceny, assault with intent to kill (upon and from Highway Patrolman Sullivan) and with carrying a pistol unlawfully.

On April 15, 1969 appellant appeared in court with his two appointed lawyers and entered pleas of guilty to (1) larceny of the Metts Chevrolet and (2) armed robbery of Patrolman Sullivan. Judge James B. Morrison accepted these pleas and sentenced Hughey to five years for grand larceny and twenty years for armed robbery, to run concurrently.

On November 3, 1969 Hughey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After a hearing which lasted portions of two days, Judge Francis Nicholson held the petition to be without merit. The facts out of which these charges arose are not greatly, if at all, in dispute.

It appears that on January 22, 1969, while State Highway Patrolman C. M. Sullivan had Hughey under arrest for driving a motor vehicle without a driver's license, and while they were enroute to the jail, Hughey drew a concealed pistol and placed it to the patrolman's head. He then took the patrolman's gun from his holster and ordered him to drive to another part of town and told him to stop the car and get out. As the patrolman was getting out of the car Hughey started shooting at him, but he escaped, and Hughey drove off in the patrol car. Later the patrol car was abandoned. In order to escape Hughey stole the Chevrolet from Mr. Metts. He was apprehended in Richland County and remained there until he was brought to Greenwood for trial.

The question presented for determination by this court is whether the guilty pleas entered by appellant were voluntary and met the standards of due process of law relative to knowledge and understanding the consequences of the pleas.

The appellant asserts that failure of his counsel to move for a change of venue as permitted by Section 17--458 of the Code, denied him the constitutional guarantee of a fair and impartial trial. His attorneys first consulted with him on the day prior to the entry of the pleas. One of the trial attorneys testified at the habeas corpus hearing that Hughey had not asked for a change of venue. He failed to convince the circuit judge that he in fact demanded a change of venue. The judge, for the purpose of his ruling, assumed that such a request was made and held that he was not prejudiced thereby. No showing was made at the habeas corpus hearing which would have warranted the granting of a motion to change venue. Those charges on which the accused denied guilt and which might have necessitated a jury trial were dropped by the State.

The main thrust of Hughey's appeal is found in the second argument: that his guilty pleas were accepted without any questioning by the sentencing judge as to Hughey's understanding of the consequences of the pleas, and in violation of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). That decision does not dictate the result sought by appellant. Boykin was decided on June 2, 1969, subsequent to the plea in this case, and is not retroactive. Davies v. State, 253 S.C. 501, 507, 171 S.E.2d 720 (1970).

Despite the absence in...