Roddy v. State, No. 25075.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL, Justice
Citation528 S.E.2d 418,339 S.C. 29
PartiesLavonne RODDY, Jr., Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Docket NumberNo. 25075.
Decision Date22 February 2000

339 S.C. 29
528 S.E.2d 418

Lavonne RODDY, Jr., Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner

No. 25075.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted January 20, 2000.

Decided February 22, 2000.


339 S.C. 31
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy, Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Teresa A. Knox, all of Columbia, for petitioner

William G. Yarborough, III, Ashmore & Yarborough, PA, of Greenville, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

The State appeals the post-conviction relief ("PCR") court's order granting Lavonne Roddy, Jr. ("Respondent") a new trial

339 S.C. 32
based upon an involuntary guilty plea. We reverse the PCR court

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On April 23, 1993, Respondent pled guilty to seven counts of grand larceny, three counts of breaking into a motor vehicle and grand larceny, one count of second degree burglary, two counts of third degree burglary, and accessory to a felony. Respondent pled guilty to all indicted offenses and was sentenced to confinement for a period of fifteen years. On the three counts of breaking into a motor vehicle and grand larceny, the plea judge sentenced Respondent to fifteen years; fifteen years suspended with five years probation, consecutive; and fifteen years, concurrent. On the remaining convictions, the plea judge sentenced Respondent to concurrent terms. Respondent did not appeal his guilty plea or his sentence.

On June 28, 1996, Respondent filed an application for PCR alleging he did not have a clear understanding of the consequences of his guilty plea. He claimed his guilty plea was not entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently because he was under the impression he would get concurrent time for all offenses. Respondent claims he thought the plea negotiations were binding on the court and he was unaware that the sentencing judge could deviate from these negotiations. Instead of receiving the negotiated plea, 15 years concurrent, Respondent received concurrent sentences and one 15 year sentence suspended with five years probation, consecutive. Respondent sought PCR because the 15 year consecutive sentence, suspended adversely affected his parole eligibility. Respondent wants a new trial on all offenses in hopes of getting only concurrent sentences.

After an evidentiary hearing, the PCR court granted Respondent relief. The PCR judge found that Respondent believed a guilty plea would assure him a 15 year concurrent sentence. The PCR judge ordered that PCR be granted and the case remanded for a new trial because: (1) the trial judge did not question Respondent to determine whether he understood that the trial court did not have to sentence him to a fifteen year concurrent sentence in accordance with the terms of his negotiated plea; and (2) Respondent's attorney was ineffective for not asking the sentencing judge to reconsider Respondent's sentence at the close of the plea hearing. The

339 S.C. 33
State appealed arguing there was no evidence to support the PCR court's finding that Respondent involuntary entered his guilty plea. The sole issue on appeal is
Whether the PCR judge erred in finding the Respondent's guilty plea was involuntary where the sentencing judge failed to inform the Respondent that the trial court did not have to sentence him to a 15 year concurrent term as suggested by the negotiated plea agreement?

LAW/ANALYSIS

The State argues the record does not support the PCR court's finding that Respondent's guilty plea was involuntary. We agree.

I. Standard of Review

When determining issues relating to guilty pleas, this Court will consider the entire record, including the transcript of the guilty pleas and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing. Harres v. Leeke, 282 S.C. 131, 318 S.E.2d 360 (1984). Specifically, the voluntariness of a guilty plea is not determined by an examination of a specific inquiry made by the sentencing judge alone, but is determined from both the record made at the time of the entry of the guilty plea, and also from the record of the PCR hearing. Id. If there is any evidence to support the findings of the PCR judge, those findings must be upheld. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 386 S.E.2d 624 (1989). However, where there is no evidence of probative value to support the findings of the PCR judge, the ruling will not be upheld. Richardson v. State, 310 S.C. 360, 426 S.E.2d 795 (1993).

II. Guilty Plea

To find a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • State v. Inman, No. 27081.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 25 janvier 2012
    ...open to the defendant.’ ” (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970))); Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (“To find a guilty plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, the record must establish the defendant had a f......
  • Young v. Lewis, C/A No.: 5:18-3046-RMG-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 11 avril 2019
    ...and "may be accomplished by colloquy between the court and defendant, between the court and defendant's counsel, or both." Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 34, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (citing State v. Ray, 310 S.C. 431, 437, 427 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1993)). Further, "[a] guilty plea is a solemn,......
  • Garren v. State, Appellate Case No. 2015-000756
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 25 avril 2018
    ...of determining whether the defendant is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily falls to the plea court. See generally Roddy v. State , 339 S.C. 29, 33-34, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (explaining that the plea court must ensure a knowing and voluntary plea) (citing Boykin v. Alabama , 395 ......
  • Hyman v. State, No. 27105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 mars 2012
    ...from both the record made at the time of the entry of the guilty plea, and also from the record of the PCR hearing.” Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33, 528 S.E.2d 418, 420 (2000) (citation omitted).I. Specific Contentions as to the Deficiency in Counsel's PerformanceA. Waiver When attempting ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • State v. Inman, No. 27081.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 25 janvier 2012
    ...open to the defendant.’ ” (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970))); Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (“To find a guilty plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, the record must establish the defendant had a f......
  • Young v. Lewis, C/A No.: 5:18-3046-RMG-KDW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • 11 avril 2019
    ...and "may be accomplished by colloquy between the court and defendant, between the court and defendant's counsel, or both." Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 34, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (citing State v. Ray, 310 S.C. 431, 437, 427 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1993)). Further, "[a] guilty plea is a solemn,......
  • Garren v. State, Appellate Case No. 2015-000756
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 25 avril 2018
    ...of determining whether the defendant is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily falls to the plea court. See generally Roddy v. State , 339 S.C. 29, 33-34, 528 S.E.2d 418, 421 (2000) (explaining that the plea court must ensure a knowing and voluntary plea) (citing Boykin v. Alabama , 395 ......
  • Hyman v. State, No. 27105.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 14 mars 2012
    ...from both the record made at the time of the entry of the guilty plea, and also from the record of the PCR hearing.” Roddy v. State, 339 S.C. 29, 33, 528 S.E.2d 418, 420 (2000) (citation omitted).I. Specific Contentions as to the Deficiency in Counsel's PerformanceA. Waiver When attempting ......
  • 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