Opinion
No. A11A1910.
2011-11-23
GREASON v. The STATE.
Motion to suppress. Walton Superior Court. Before Judge Ott.Billy Greason, pro se. Layla Hinton Zon, Dist Atty., Erle J. Newton III, Marie E. Greene, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Motion to suppress. Walton Superior Court. Before Judge Ott.Billy Greason, pro se. Layla Hinton Zon, Dist Atty., Erle J. Newton III, Marie E. Greene, Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
McFADDEN, Judge.
Billy Greason appeals the judgment of conviction entered on his guilty pleas to maintaining a disorderly house and misdemeanor possession of marijuana. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and that the state failed to produce physical evidence to support the convictions. Because Greason waived these challenges by entering his guilty pleas, we affirm.
“A defendant waives any error in the denial of his motion to suppress by pleading guilty; therefore, this [c]ourt is precluded from reviewing that decision.” (Citations omitted.) Skinitis v. State, 271 Ga.App. 549, 550, 610 S.E.2d 571 (2005). A defendant also waives any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by pleading guilty. Henry v. State, 284 Ga.App. 439, 440(1), 644 S.E.2d 191 (2007). We observe that the state established a factual basis for Greason's pleas. See Zellmer v. State, 257 Ga.App. 346, 347(1), 571 S.E.2d 174 (2002).
With a few limited exceptions not applicable here, a plea of guilty generally waives all defenses except those based upon the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea. Once a defendant solemnly admits in open court that he is, in fact, guilty of the offense charged, he generally may not thereafter raise independent claims that occurred prior to the entry of his guilty plea. (Citations omitted.) Pirkle v. State, 240 Ga.App. 24, 26(2), 522 S.E.2d 526 (1999). It follows that, by entering his guilty pleas, Greason waived his challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, to the state's failure to provide physical evidence, and, to the extent the evidentiary challenge raised the issue, to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions.
Judgment affirmed.