Rivers v. Strickland, No. 19977

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMOSS
Citation264 S.C. 121,213 S.E.2d 97
PartiesHill RIVERS, Appellant, v. J. W. STRICKLAND, Warden, State of South Carolina, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 19977
Decision Date25 March 1975

Page 97

213 S.E.2d 97
264 S.C. 121
Hill RIVERS, Appellant,
v.
J. W. STRICKLAND, Warden, State of South Carolina, Respondent.
No. 19977.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
March 25, 1975.

Eva H. Brunson, Allendale, for appellant.

[264 S.C. 122] Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen., Emmet C. Clair and Stephen T. Savitz, Columbia, for respondent.

MOSS, Chief Judge:

Hill Rivers, the appellant herein, at the 1972 October Term of the Court of General Sessions for Allendale County, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault and battery with intent to kill and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years.

The appellant, on September 30, 1973, filed his application for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Section 17--601 et seq., of the Code, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntarily made and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. He asked that he be granted a new trial.

The State duly filed a reply, incorporating the transcript of the proceedings had at the time the appellant entered his plea of guilty and asserting that there were no facts alleged in the petition when compared with the transcript of record, that entitled the appellant to any relief.

Page 98

The application for post-conviction relief was heard by the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., Resident Judge, who [264 S.C. 123] dismissed and denied the application for post-conviction relief but, pursuant to Section 17--606 of the Code, as amended, granted the appellant fifteen days from the date of the order to show cause why it should not become final. The appellant, thereafter, filed a reply reasserting his former contentions. The trial judge found that the response failed to supply any reason for altering the original order and finally dismissed the application of the appellant. This appeal follows.

The record shows that the appellant was a prisoner in the Allendale County Jail in April, 1971, awaiting trial on a charge of housebreaking and grand larceny, of which he was subsequently convicted and given a six year sentence. While so incarcerated, the appellant made an attack with a mop handle on a fellow prisoner, who, at the time, was asleep in his bunk. As a result of this vicious beating, the victim is now nothing more than a vegetable.

The appellant was sent to the Central Corrections Institution in Columbia for the service of his sentence on the housebreaking and grand larceny charge. In April, 1972, he was returned to Allendale...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Frazer v. South Carolina, No. 04-6500.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 8, 2005
    ...claims of violations of constitutional rights," State v. Passaro, 350 S.C. 499, 567 S.E.2d 862, 866 (2002) (citing Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975)), the general rule appears to be that "a plea of guilty, voluntarily and Page 710 made, constitutes a waiver of non......
  • Ramdass v Angelone, No. 99-7000
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 2000
    ...imposed. While a South Carolina defendant might challenge a guilty plea, the grounds for doing so are limited, see Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S. C. 121, 124, 213 S. E. 2d 97, 98, (1975) ("The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of......
  • Hyman v. State, No. 27105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 14, 2012
    ...that a criminal defendant is waiving the right to raise certain constitutional claims by pleading guilty. See Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975) (“The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdicti......
  • State v. Means, No. 26105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 6, 2006
    ...constitutional rights, by failing to raise the issue or by admitting the sufficiency of a particular indictment. Cf. Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 124, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975) (defendant may waive right to assert various statutory and constitutional rights, nonjurisdictional defects,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Frazer v. South Carolina, No. 04-6500.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 8, 2005
    ...claims of violations of constitutional rights," State v. Passaro, 350 S.C. 499, 567 S.E.2d 862, 866 (2002) (citing Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975)), the general rule appears to be that "a plea of guilty, voluntarily and Page 710 made, constitutes a waiver of non......
  • Ramdass v Angelone, No. 99-7000
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 12, 2000
    ...imposed. While a South Carolina defendant might challenge a guilty plea, the grounds for doing so are limited, see Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S. C. 121, 124, 213 S. E. 2d 97, 98, (1975) ("The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of......
  • Hyman v. State, No. 27105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 14, 2012
    ...that a criminal defendant is waiving the right to raise certain constitutional claims by pleading guilty. See Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975) (“The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdicti......
  • State v. Means, No. 26105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 6, 2006
    ...constitutional rights, by failing to raise the issue or by admitting the sufficiency of a particular indictment. Cf. Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 124, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975) (defendant may waive right to assert various statutory and constitutional rights, nonjurisdictional defects,......
  • 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