Opinion
2022-UP-432 Appellate Case 2020-000091
12-07-2022
The State, Respondent, v. Shi Heme Raquan Price, Appellant.
Stephen Drew Geoly, of Geoly Law Firm, and Robert Jamison Tinsley, Jr., of Tinsley & Tinsley, P.C., both of Greenwood, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Respondent.
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.
Submitted November 1, 2022
Appeal From Abbeville County Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge
Stephen Drew Geoly, of Geoly Law Firm, and Robert Jamison Tinsley, Jr., of Tinsley & Tinsley, P.C., both of Greenwood, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Shi Heme Raquan Price appeals his guilty plea to voluntary manslaughter and thirty-year sentence, which was suspended to four years' imprisonment with two years active in the South Carolina Department of Corrections and two years on house arrest. On appeal, Price argues the circuit court erred in denying his pretrial motion for immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act (the Act). We affirm.
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015).
We hold Price waived his right to challenge the circuit court's denial of his immunity request when he pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sims, 423 S.C. 397, 402, 814 S.E.2d 632, 634 (Ct. App. 2018) ("[T]he right to immunity does not spontaneously appear; it is a statutory right a defendant must prove he is entitled to."); id. ("[T]here is nothing defective in the State's prosecution of or the court's jurisdiction over a defendant asserting immunity until immunity is established. At that point, the defect incurably arises, and the court's jurisdiction departs."); id. (finding "the viability of [the defendant's] immunity claim ended with his plea" and a "guilty plea is 'a lid on the box, whatever is in it, not a platform from which to explore further possibilities'" (quoting United States v. Bluso, 519 F.2d 473, 474 (4th Cir. 1975))); id. (declining to address the merits of the defendant's claim for immunity under the Act because the defendant subsequently entered a guilty plea).
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
KONDUROS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.