Opinion
2018-UP-233
06-06-2018
The State, Respondent, v. Alphonso Morgan, Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-000269
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDINGEXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted May 1, 2018
Appeal From Greenwood County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Alphonso Morgan, Jr. appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for immunity from prosecution under the Protection of Persons and Property Act. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Munsch, 287 S.C. 313, 314, 338 S.E.2d 329, 330 (1985) ("Guilty pleas act as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses."); Whetsell v. State, 276 S.C. 295, 297, 277 S.E.2d 891, 892 (1981) ("The general rule is that guilty pleas, freely and voluntarily entered, act as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, including the claims of a violation of a constitutional right prior to the plea."); Vogel v. City of Myrtle Beach, 291 S.C. 229, 231, 353 S.E.2d 137, 138 (1987) ("[A guilty plea] conclusively disposes of all prior issues including independent claims of deprivations of constitutional rights."); State v. Tucker, 376 S.C. 412, 418, 656 S.E.2d 403, 406 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence." (quoting U.S. v. Broce Construction Co., 488 U.S. 563, 565 (1989))); State v. Sims, Op. No. 5553 (S.C. Ct. App. filed April 18, 2018) (Shearouse Adv. Sheet No. 16 at 30, 33) (finding "[appellant's] statutory immunity claim [under the Protection of Persons and Property Act] warrants no exception to the rule against conditional pleas and the key role it plays in ensuring the finality of judgments" and holding "the viability of [appellant's] immunity claim ended with his plea").
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.