State v. Mack

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.

Steven Mack, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-389  

Submitted September 1, 2007 – Filed
September 24, 2007

APPEAL DISMISSED

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,  of
Columbia; Solicitor Warren B. Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Steven Mack pled guilty to assault and battery with intent to
kill (ABWIK) and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent
crime.  He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment for ABWIK
and five years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm during the commission
of a violent crime.  On appeal, Mack argues the trial judge erred in employing
a “mass guilty plea format.”  Mack contends that such a process undermines the
voluntariness required by the Due Process Clause.  This argument is without
merit as appellant voiced no objections at the guilty plea hearing.  See State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 380, 580 S.E.2d 785, 795
(Ct. App. 2003) (“Arguments not raised to or ruled upon by the trial court are
not preserved for appellate review.”); see also State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent
timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty
plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of
post-conviction relief). 

After a thorough
review of the record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), and State v. Williams, 305 S.C. 116, 406 S.E.2d 357 (1991), we
hold there are no directly appealable issues that are arguable on their
merits.  Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal and grant counsel’s petition to be
relieved.[1]

APPEAL
DISMISSED.

HEARN, C.J.,
HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.

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