From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Rolen

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Feb 23, 2012
2012-UP-085 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-085

02-23-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Craig Rolen, Appellant.

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.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted February 1, 2012

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

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 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)).

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

AFFIRMED.

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


Summaries of

State v. Rolen

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Feb 23, 2012
2012-UP-085 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Rolen

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Craig Rolen, Appellant.

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 23, 2012

Citations

2012-UP-085 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2012)