Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-085 - State v. Rolen

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.

Craig Rolen, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-085
Submitted February 1, 2012 -  Filed February 22, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Craig Rolen appeals the plea judge's order, arguing the plea judge abused his discretion in denying Rolen's motion to withdraw a guilty plea.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Thomason, 355 S.C. 278, 283, 584 S.E.2d 143, 145 (Ct. App. 2003) ("All that is required before a plea can be accepted is that the defendant understand the nature and crucial elements of the charges, the consequences of the plea, and the constitutional rights he is waiving, and that the record reflect a factual basis for the plea." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 283, 584 S.E.2d at 146 ("However, once a defendant enters a guilty plea, whether to allow withdrawal of the plea is left to the sound discretion of the [plea judge]." (citation omitted)); State v. Riddle, 278 S.C. 148, 150, 292 S.E.2d 795, 796 (1982) (holding a determination the plea was voluntarily entered "will normally show the [plea] judge did not abuse his discretion" (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.


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