State v. Nesbitt

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.

Brian Keith
Nesbitt, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

 J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-092

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 8, 2008   

AFFIRMED

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,
and Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Nesbitt entered an Alford[1] plea to two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature
(ABHAN) and two counts of resisting arrest.  Nesbitt appeals, arguing his
persistent denial of the State’s factual allegations rendered his plea invalid. We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)
(“[W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an express
admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the
imposition of criminal penalty. An individual accused of crime may voluntarily,
knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence
even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts
constituting the crime.”); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292
S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (“Absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the
unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through
the more appropriate channel of Post-Conviction Relief.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN,
C.J., and PIEPER, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

[1] North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

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