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,
Andre Norris, Appellant.
Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-014
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012
Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Andre Norris appeals his conviction for kidnapping, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and (2) violating his due process right to be present at a critical stage of the proceeding against him. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea: State v. Riddle, 278 S.C. 148, 150, 292 S.E.2d 795, 796 (1982) ("The withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the [circuit court]."); State v. Rikard, 371 S.C. 295, 301, 638 S.E.2d 72, 75 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A determination the plea was voluntarily entered will normally show the [circuit court] did not abuse [its] discretion." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); id. at 300-301, 638 S.E.2d at 75 ("[T]o knowingly and voluntarily enter a plea of guilty, all that is required is that a defendant has a full understanding of the consequences of [his] plea and the charges against [him]. . . . Moreover, the record in a guilty plea proceeding must establish a factual basis for the plea." (internal citation omitted)).
2. As to whether the circuit court violated Norris's due process right to be present at a critical stage of the proceeding against him: State v. Huggins, 336 S.C. 200, 203 n.2, 519 S.E.2d 574, 575 n.2 (1999) (holding because appellant failed to raise the argument that his sentencing phase was unconstitutional to the circuit court, the issue was not preserved for review).
FEW, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.