Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-092 - State v. Best

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.

Hartford Renard Best, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-092
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed March 8, 2011   


AFFIRMED


George N. Spirakis, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General S. Creighton Waters, all of Columbia; and Solicitor John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Hartford Renard Best appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in finding that the indictment was proper, (2) the trial court erred in holding that newly discovered evidence was not grounds for a new trial, and (3) the trial court erred in not holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in finding the indictment was proper:  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.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in finding the newly discovered evidence was not proper grounds for a new trial:  State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 157-158, 508 S.E.2d 857, 869 (1998) (outlining what is required for a defendant to prevail on a motion for a new trial based on after discovered evidence and providing that "the granting of such a motion is not favored and, absent error of law or abuse of discretion" the trial court should be affirmed).      

3. As to whether the trial court erred in not finding the death penalty unconstitutional under the South Carolina Constitution:  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."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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