Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-404 - In the Interest of Edward V.

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

In the Interest of Edward V., a Juvenile under the age of Seventeen, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenwood County
 Roger E. Henderson, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-404
Submitted December 1, 2006 – Filed December 11, 2006


AFFIRMED


Acting 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  On September 23, 2004, Edward V. pled guilty to criminal contempt in family court for failing to follow a school attendance order.  The family court judge found Edward to be in contempt and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice for ninety days.  Edward argues on appeal that his guilty plea did not comply with the mandates of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969).

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding that absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through post-conviction relief); In the Interest of Arisha K.S., 331 S.C. 288, 296, 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (affirming a thirteen-year-old juvenile’s guilty plea because her counsel did not object to the guilty plea and thus the case law mandated affirmance).

AFFIRMED.[1]

GOOLSBY, STILWELL, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.


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