Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-101 - State v. Mills

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.

Ronnie Mills, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Honorable Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-101
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 12, 2008  


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, 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 Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Ronnie Mills (Appellant) pled guilty to second-degree burglary and strong armed robbery.  He was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years in prison for each offense.  On appeal, Appellant argues his plea was not voluntarily and intelligently given because, although the plea judge advised him that second-degree burglary was a violent offense, the judge did not advise him that it “is a serious charge and therefore a strike under the three strikes law.”  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities:  State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (“In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge.  Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.”); 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.[1]

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


[1]  This case is decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.