Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-410 - State v, Ford

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Cedric Jovaugh Ford, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-410  
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed September 16, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Cedric Jovaugh Ford appeals his guilty plea for trafficking in cocaine.  On appeal, Ford argues the trial court erred in failing to suppress the cocaine found during a checkpoint search. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Gibson v. State, 334 S.C. 515, 523, 514 S.E.2d 320, 324 (1999) ("A defendant who pleads guilty usually may not later raise independent claims of constitutional violations.");Rivers v. Strickland, 264 S.C. 121, 124, 213 S.E.2d 97, 98 (1975) ("The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of violation of constitutional rights prior to the plea."); State v. Snowdon, 371 S.C. 331, 333, 638 S.E.2d 91, 92 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Generally, a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of constitutional violations. A defendant who pleads guilty usually may not later raise independent claims of constitutional violations.") (quotation marks and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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