State v. Timmons

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Melvin Lamont
Timmons Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-254

Submitted May 1, 2008 – Filed May 14, 2008   

APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Solicitor
Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Melvin Lamont Timmons appeals his
convictions for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, kidnapping, armed
robbery and possession of a pistol by a person under twenty-one.   Timmons
contends his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.  We dismiss[1] his appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating absent a
timely objection during guilty plea, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a
plea can be attacked only through the avenue of post-conviction relief); State
v. Barton, 325 S.C. 522, 530 n.6, 481 S.E.2d 439, 443 n.6 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating
any challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of a guilty plea can be raised
only in a petition for post-conviction relief).

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN,
C.J., and SHORT and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.