State v. Morgan, 2018-UP-233
Decision Date | 06 June 2018 |
Docket Number | 2018-UP-233 |
Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Alphonso Morgan, Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-000269 |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDINGEXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted May 1, 2018
Appeal From Greenwood County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
Alphonso Morgan, Jr. appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for immunity from prosecution under the Protection of Persons and Property Act.[1] We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Munsch, 287 S.C. 313, 314, 338 S.E.2d 329, 330 (1985) ("Guilty pleas act as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses."); Whetsell v. State, 276 S.C. 295, 297, 277 S.E.2d 891, 892 (1981) (); Vogel v. City of Myrtle Beach, 291 S.C. 229, 231, 353 S.E.2d 137, 138 (1987) (); State v. Tucker, 376 S.C. 412, 418, 656 S.E.2d 403, 406 (Ct. App. 2008) ; State v. Sims, Op. No. 5553 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 18, 2018) (Shearouse Adv. Sheet No. 16 at 30, 33) ("[appellant's] statutory immunity claim [under the Protection of Persons and Property Act] warrants no exception to the rule against conditional pleas and the key role it plays in ensuring the finality of judgments" and holding "the viability of [appellant's] immunity claim ended with his plea") .
AFFIRMED.[2]
---------
Notes:
[1] S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015).
[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
---------
To continue reading
Request your trial