In re Johnny Lee W., No. 26233.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMoore
Citation638 S.E.2d 682
PartiesIn the Interest of JOHNNY LEE W., a minor under the age of seventeen, Appellant.
Decision Date04 December 2006
Docket NumberNo. 26233.
638 S.E.2d 682
In the Interest of JOHNNY LEE W., a minor under the age of seventeen, Appellant.
No. 26233.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard October 5, 2006.
Decided December 4, 2006.

Page 683

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, 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, of Columbia; and Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for respondent.

Justice MOORE:


In this appeal, we are asked whether the trial judge erred by accepting appellant's conditional guilty pleas. We vacate in part and remand.

FACTS

Appellant was charged with disturbing school and threatening a public official in January 2004. He filed a motion to quash the charge based on the unconstitutionality of S.C.Code Ann. § 16-17-420 (Supp.2005), on the grounds it was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.1 The motion was denied by Judge George McFaddin, Jr.

Subsequently, appellant was charged with disturbing school in September 2004, by hitting two students, and disturbing school on the same date by hitting a third student.2 Appellant filed a motion to quash these two charges on the same constitutional grounds.

Page 684

Appellant pled guilty to the three charges of disturbing schools. He entered a plea of no contest to the threatening a public official charge. Finding he was bound by Judge McFaddin's earlier ruling on the motion to quash, Judge R. Wright Turbeville found that the statute is not unconstitutional. Judge Turbeville adjudicated appellant a delinquent and accepted his pleas and remanded him to Reception and Evaluation for evaluation.

Appellant later appeared before Judge Turbeville for disposition and was sentenced to commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate period not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. The sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation for one year.

ISSUE

Are appellant's guilty pleas invalid as conditional guilty pleas?

DISCUSSION

At the adjudicatory hearing, the following exchange occurred:

COUNSEL: . . . What I'm trying to do here is, in the interest of judicial economy and without putting the State to the task of a trial to prove that we engaged in conduct that would violate the statute if the statute were constitutional, is to simply stipulate to that, but continuing to maintain for and preserve our right to appeal.

THE COURT: To preserve your right to appeal Judge McFaddin's ruling.

COUNSEL: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. The constitutionality of those statutes.

COUNSEL:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Rice, No. 27210.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 16 de janeiro de 2013
    ...guilty pleas. State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 370, 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1982); see also In re Johnny Lee W., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006) (“A trial court may not accept a conditional plea.”). Rather, in South Carolina, a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdiction......
  • State v. Sims, Appellate Case No. 2015-000721
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 de abril de 2018
    ...v. Peppers , 346 S.C. 502, 504–505, 552 S.E.2d 288, 289 (2001) (distinguishing Blackledge ); In re Johnny Lee W ., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006), we find the Curcio formulation useful for determining whether a jurisdictional defect exists. Testing Sims' immunity claim agains......
  • Watts v. Warden, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-2954-BHH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 27 de março de 2018
    ...v. Rice, 737 S.E.2d 485, 485 (S.C. 2013) (citing State v. Truesdale, 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (S.C. 1982) (per curiam); IN re Johnny Lee W., 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (S.C. 2006) ("A trial court may not accept a conditional plea.")). Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the transcript clearly shows......
  • The State v. Harrelson, Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-030
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 8 de novembro de 2010
    ...LAW/ANALYSIS It is axiomatic that conditional pleas may not be accepted in South Carolina. See In re Johnny Lee W., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006); see alsoState v. Peppers, 346 S.C. 502, 504, 552 S.E.2d 288, 289 (2001) (court could not accept guilty plea where appellant cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Rice, No. 27210.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 16 de janeiro de 2013
    ...guilty pleas. State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 370, 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1982); see also In re Johnny Lee W., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006) (“A trial court may not accept a conditional plea.”). Rather, in South Carolina, a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdiction......
  • State v. Sims, Appellate Case No. 2015-000721
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 18 de abril de 2018
    ...v. Peppers , 346 S.C. 502, 504–505, 552 S.E.2d 288, 289 (2001) (distinguishing Blackledge ); In re Johnny Lee W ., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006), we find the Curcio formulation useful for determining whether a jurisdictional defect exists. Testing Sims' immunity claim agains......
  • Watts v. Warden, Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-2954-BHH
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 27 de março de 2018
    ...v. Rice, 737 S.E.2d 485, 485 (S.C. 2013) (citing State v. Truesdale, 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (S.C. 1982) (per curiam); IN re Johnny Lee W., 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (S.C. 2006) ("A trial court may not accept a conditional plea.")). Second, the Magistrate Judge found that the transcript clearly shows......
  • The State v. Harrelson, Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-030
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 8 de novembro de 2010
    ...LAW/ANALYSIS It is axiomatic that conditional pleas may not be accepted in South Carolina. See In re Johnny Lee W., 371 S.C. 217, 220, 638 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2006); see alsoState v. Peppers, 346 S.C. 502, 504, 552 S.E.2d 288, 289 (2001) (court could not accept guilty plea where appellant cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT