State v. Mitchell

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.

Bucky Mitchell, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2004-UP-629

Submitted December 1, 2004 – Filed December
14, 2004

DISMISSED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney
General W. Rutledge Martin, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Bucky Mitchell appeals the lower court’s acceptance of his
guilty plea.  We dismiss. [1]  

FACTS

In December 2000, a Richland County grand jury indicted Bucky Mitchell on four
counts: two kidnapping charges and two charges of criminal sexual conduct with
a minor in the second degree.  Prior to opening statements at trial, Mitchell
entered a negotiated plea of guilty but mentally ill on a single count of criminal
sexual conduct with a minor and the State dismissed the other charges.  The
lower court accepted Mitchell’s plea and sentenced him to seven years.  This
appeal follows.           

LAW/ANALYSIS

Mitchell argues that his guilty plea failed to comply with Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238 (1969), which requires guilty pleas be voluntarily and intelligently
made.  We find that Mitchell failed to properly preserve the issue below.  Mitchell
made no objection at the plea proceeding.  Failure of a defendant to assert
that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent precludes consideration
of the issue on appeal.  State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d
598, 599 (1982).  The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea that
was not objected to at the time of its entry is through post-conviction relief. 
In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 477 S.E.2d 713 (1996). 

DISMISSED.

ANDERSON, STILWELL, and SHORT JJ., concur.

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