State v. McKinney
| Decision Date | 09 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 21726,21726 |
| Citation | 292 S.E.2d 598,278 S.C. 107 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. William Michael McKINNEY, Appellant. |
Asst. Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S.C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser and Martha L. McElveen, Columbia, and Acting Sol. William B. Traxler, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery and was sentenced to nine (9) years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of three (3) years and five (5) years' probation. Appellant now alleges his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. We dismiss the appeal for the reason set forth below.
Appellant failed to assert before the trial court that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In State v. Bradley, 263 S.C. 223, 209 S.E.2d 435 (1974), we held failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. We now extend that holding to include the unknowing nature of a plea, especially where, as in the present case, a defendant is represented by counsel. Our refusal to hear this issue on direct appeal is consistent with the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection. State v. Sullivan, S.C., 282 S.E.2d 838 (1981). That rule can be applied to federal constitutional claims. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977).
Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of Post-Conviction Relief.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patrick v. Warden
...at trial to the testimony claimed to be erroneously admitted and did not raise the issue at any point during trial); State v. McKinney, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (S.C. 1982) ("Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked ......
-
State v. Higgenbottom
...cruel and unusual punishment held procedurally barred because it was not first presented to the trial court); cf. State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982) (absent a timely objection during the guilty plea proceeding, the unknowing or involuntary nature of a guilty plea cannot ......
-
In Interest of Arisha KS
...trial that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered, was precluded from consideration of such claim on appeal). In State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982), our Supreme Court declined to review for compliance with Boykin's requirements stating that absent a timely objection a......
-
State v. Burroughs
...Hudgins, 319 S.C. at 239, 460 S.E.2d at 391 (refusing to address constitutional issue that was not raised at trial); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982) (rule requiring contemporaneous objection extends to constitutional Over Burroughs's objections, the trial court allowe......