Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-MO-024 - Burke v. State

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 Supreme Court

Christopher L. Burke, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From Lexington County
 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-024
Submitted May 29, 2008 – Filed June 2, 2008  


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Daniel E. Grigg, Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).

Petitioner contends his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), because the plea judge did not explain his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to confront his accusers, or that a jury would have to find him guilty by unanimous verdict if he went to trial. 

The plea judge informed petitioner of the maximum penalty for his offense and warned petitioner he would forfeit his right to a jury trial and rights associated with a jury trial by entering a guilty plea.  In addition, plea counsel stated she informed petitioner of his rights and she believed petitioner understood them.  Therefore, the record indicates petitioner had an affirmative awareness of the consequences of a guilty plea.  LoPiano v. State, 270 S.C. 563, 243 S.E.2d 448 (1978).  Accordingly, we affirm petitioner’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. WALLER, J., not participating.