Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2007-UP-389 - 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Unpublished Opinion No. 2007-UP-389  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.