Heaton v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

Thomas Chad
Heaton, Respondent,

v.

State of South
Carolina, Petitioner.

Appeal From Anderson County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-456

Heard October 4, 2011 – Filed October 13,
2011  

AFFIRMED

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, of
Columbia, for Petitioner.

Ricky Keith Harris, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  The
State appeals the trial court's order granting post-conviction relief (PCR) to Thomas Heaton.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1.   As to the
standard of review: Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989)
(declaring that on appeal, this court should uphold the PCR court's ruling if
it is supported by any evidence of probative value in the record); Solomon
v. State, 313 S.C. 526, 529, 443 S.E.2d 540, 542 (1994) (providing if
matters of credibility are involved, this court gives deference to the PCR
judge's findings because this court lacks the opportunity to directly observe
the witnesses); Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 383, 629 S.E.2d 353, 356
(2006) (stating this court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings of
fact and conclusions of law).

2. As to the guilty plea: Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44 (1969) (noting that generally, a guilty plea
must be entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently); State v. Lambert,
266 S.C. 574, 580, 225 S.E.2d 340, 342 (1976) (holding the record should
reflect that the trial court has assured itself that the plea was voluntary and
intelligently entered with full knowledge of the nature of the offense); State
v. Ray, 310 S.C. 431, 437, 427 S.E.2d 171, 174 (1993) ("A defendant's
knowing and voluntary waiver of a statutory or constitutional right must be
established by a complete record; and may be accomplished by colloquy between
the court and the defendant, between the court and defendant's counsel, or
both."); Pittman v. State, 337 S.C. 597, 599, 524 S.E.2d 623,
624-25 (1999) ("When determining issues relating to guilty pleas, the
court will consider the entire record, including the transcript of the guilty
plea, and the evidence presented at the PCR hearing."); Anderson v.
State, 342 S.C. 54, 57, 535 S.E.2d 649, 651 (2000) (stating the defendant
must be aware of (1) the nature and crucial elements of the offense; (2) the
maximum and any mandatory minimum penalty; and (3) the constitutional rights
being waived); 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 full understanding of the consequences of his
plea and the charges against him."); State v. Rikard, 371 S.C.
295, 301, 638 S.E.2d 72, 75 (Ct. App. 2006) (quoting State v. Armstrong,
263 S.C. 594, 598, 211 S.E.2d 889, 891 (1975) and instructing that in accepting
a guilty plea the trial court may "use any appropriate procedure for
determining the accuracy of the guilty plea;" however, the trial court
must ensure the defendant "understands the charge and the consequences of
the plea and that the record indicates a factual basis for the plea").

3. As to the other issues: Futch
v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d
591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need not review remaining issues
when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive of the appeal).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.