State v. Norris

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Andre Norris, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-014 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January
25, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Andre
Norris appeals his conviction for kidnapping, arguing the circuit court erred
in (1) denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) violating his due
process right to be present at a critical stage of the proceeding against him. 
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the
circuit court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea:  State
v. Riddle, 278 S.C. 148, 150, 292 S.E.2d 795, 796 (1982) ("The
withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the
[circuit court]."); State v. Rikard, 371 S.C. 295, 301, 638 S.E.2d
72, 75 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A determination the plea was voluntarily entered
will normally show the [circuit court] did not abuse [its] discretion." 
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); id. at 300-301, 638
S.E.2d at 75 ("[T]o knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea of guilty, all
that is required is that a defendant has a full understanding of the
consequences of [his] plea and the charges against [him]. . . . Moreover, the
record in a guilty plea proceeding must establish a factual basis for the
plea."  (internal citation omitted)).

2. As to whether
the circuit court violated Norris's due process right to be present at a
critical stage of the proceeding against him:  State v. Huggins, 336 S.C. 200, 203 n.2, 519 S.E.2d 574, 575 n.2 (1999) (holding
because appellant failed to raise the argument that his sentencing phase was
unconstitutional to the circuit court, the issue was not preserved for
review).   

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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