Rivers v. Strickland, 19977
| Decision Date | 25 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 19977,19977 |
| Citation | 264 S.C. 121,213 S.E.2d 97 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hill RIVERS, Appellant, v. J. W. STRICKLAND, Warden, State of South Carolina, Respondent. |
Eva H. Brunson, Allendale, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys. Gen., Emmet C. Clair and Stephen T. Savitz, Columbia, for respondent.
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.
The application for post-conviction relief was heard by the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., Resident Judge, who 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 County for trial for the assault and battery Committed on his fellow prisoner. Counsel was duly appointed to represent him, and such counsel, recognizing that he could not properly represent him on the date of his appointment, asked for a continuance, which motion was granted by the trial judge, in order that he might fully prepare for trial.
The case was called for trial at the 1972 October Term of the Court of General Sessions for Allendale County, at which time, pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, the appellant tendered a plea of guilty to the charge of assault and battery with intent to kill. Prior to the acceptance of the plea of guilty, the trial judge, in accordance with the rule enunciated in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, conducted an examination of the appellant, with a stenographic record being made thereof, to determine whether the plea was being made freely, intelligently and voluntaril...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramdass v Angelone
...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 nonjuris......
-
Frazer v. South Carolina
...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 made, constitutes a waiver of non-jurisdic......
-
Hyman v. State
...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
...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, and defenses b......