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
The State, Respondent,
Nathan Demetrious Smith, Appellant.
Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-381
Submitted June 1, 2005 – June 13, 2005
Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz III, 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 Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Nathan D. Smith appeals a guilty plea to one count each of armed robbery and safecracking. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of ten years on each charge. We affirm.
On August 4, 2002, Nathan Smith, Jeremiah Washington, and Ishmael Wilson entered a local gas station armed and wearing masks. Upon entering,
During the course of the robbery, the employees were able to identify Washington and Wilson.
Smith, Washington, and Wilson were charged with two counts of armed robbery, safecracking, and conspiracy. On October 23, 2003, Smith and Washington appeared before the circuit court to enter guilty pleas. In exchange for pleading guilty to one count of armed robbery and safecracking, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining armed robbery and conspiracy charges. In addition, due to a lack of prior criminal history, the State recommended minimum sentences.
After ensuring the defendants understood their constitutional rights and that their pleas were voluntarily and intelligently given, the trial court, without objection from either defendant, accepted the State’s recommendation and gave both the minimum possible sentences—concurrent terms of ten years on each charge.
On appeal, Smith argues the trial court erred in accepting his plea to safecracking because the facts of the robbery do not satisfy of the elements of the charge. We disagree.
It is axiomatic, that to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court. See State v. Powers, 331 S.C. 37, 501 S.E.2d 116 (1998) (holding failure to raise constitutional issue at trial precluded its consideration on appeal). As mentioned previously, neither Smith nor his cohort raised any objections to the trial court during the plea proceeding. Furthermore, “[t]he general rule is that guilty pleas, freely and voluntarily entered, act as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including the claims of a violation of a constitutional right prior to the plea.” Whetsell v. State, 276 S.C. 295, 297, 277 S.E.2d 891, 892 (1981).
Because Smith does not claim the trial court lacked jurisdiction, his argument would be more properly raised in an action for post-conviction relief. See e.g., Fossick v. State, 317 S.C. 375, 453 S.E.2d 899 (1995).
ANDERSON, STILWELL and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.