State v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 12 January 2006
• Docket Number: 2006-UP-030
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Stephen Tyrone Simmons, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent, v. Stephen Tyrone Simmons, Appellant.

No. 2006-UP-030

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

January 12, 2006

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

Submitted January 1, 2006

Appeal From York County Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

In this appeal of a guilty plea, Stephen Tyrone Simmons argues the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea because it was made conditional on his ability to appeal the denial of pre-trial motions. We affirm. ^[1]

FACTS

On April 27, 2002, York County narcotics officers instructed James Moore, a confidential informant, to contact Simmons and set up a deal over the telephone to purchase cocaine. Moore and Simmons agreed to meet at a liquor store. Simmons delivered to Moore what was later identified as 114.70 grams of cocaine. The police videotaped the transaction between Simmons and Moore. Simmons was apprehended, given his Miranda rights, which he waived, and confessed to delivering cocaine to Moore.

In July 2002, the York County Grand Jury indicted Simmons on one count of trafficking between 100 and 200 grams of cocaine. The case was called for a jury trial on November 6, 2002. Simmons proceeded pro se. Prior to trial, Simmons submitted a Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) document to the trial court, moved to dismiss the claims against him based on this document, and moved to file a commercial lien against everyone involved in the prosecution. The trial court denied the motion stating that it was unrelated to the criminal case at hand. Simmons then moved to renounce his United States citizenship. The trial court informed Simmons it did not have jurisdiction to grant such a request, and he would have to pursue the request in federal court.

The trial court impressed upon Simmons the importance of having representation, and Simmons decided that it was in his best interest to move forward with an attorney. After a brief recess, Simmons's counsel informed the trial court that Simmons wanted to plead guilty pursuant to an agreement with the State to allow a plea to the lesser charge of trafficking between 28 and 100 grams of cocaine, second offense, with a negotiated sentence of sixteen years. In accordance with the plea agreement and negotiated sentence, Simmons was sentenced to sixteen years. This appeal followed.

LAW/ANALYSIS

Simmons argues the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea because it was made conditional on his ability to appeal the denial of his pre-trial motions concerning the UCC claim and the request to renounce his citizenship. We disagree.

In South Carolina, a guilty plea must be unconditional. State v. Peppers, 346 S.C. 502, 504, 552 S.E.2d 288 289 (2001). If an accused attempts to attach any condition the trial court must direct a plea of not guilty. State v. O'Leary, 302 S.C. 17, 18, 393 S.E.2d 186, 187 (1990). The basis for this rule is the settled doctrine that a guilty plea constitutes a waiver of all prior claims of constitutional rights or deprivations thereof.” Peppers, 346 at 504, 552 S.E.2d at 289.

Rule 201, SCARC, provides an appeal may be taken, as provided by law, from any final judgment or appealable order.” However, it is error for defendants to preserve certain issues while entering pleas of guilty, and if a defendant does so, the plea is conditional and invalid. See State v. O'Leary, 302 S.C. 17, 18, 393 S.E.2d 186, 187 (1990). The issues Simmons sought to preserve for appeal are not issues that are prohibited from being preserved. Generally, the issue of a conditional plea arises when a defendant seeks to preserve for appeal a challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute or preserve for appeal pre-trial motions concerning the deprivation of a constitutional right.

In O'Leary, the trial court accepted the defendant's plea of guilty to the offense of driving under suspension (DUS”), conditioned, however, upon the defendant's right to appeal his constitutional challenges of the DUS statute. Id. at 18, 393 S.E.2d at 187. In finding O'Leary's plea to be conditional and invalid the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that

[g]uilty pleas are unconditional and, if an accused attempts to attach any condition, the trial court must direct a plea of not guilty.... It is, thus, impermissible for a defendant to preserve constitutional issues while entertaining a guilty plea; the trial court may not accept the plea on such terms.

Id. (citations omitted).

Additionally, in the case of State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 296 S.E.2d 528 (1982), the trial court reversed the defendant's conviction, following his conditional guilty plea. In pre-trial motions, Truesdale sought a change of venue, a limitation on the use of peremptory challenges by the solicitor, and certain restrictions upon the disqualification of jurors for cause. Id. at 369, 296 S.E.2d at 529. These motions were denied, and Truesdale entered a plea of guilty. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held the entrance of such a conditional guilty plea was improper, and it was error for the trial court to accept the pleas on such terms. Id. at 370, 296 S.E.2d at 529. It is important to note that prior to the trial court accepting Truesdale's guilty plea, his counsel made an equivocating statement as follows:

However, to

...