In the Interest of David L. ( 2013 )

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 Supreme Court
In the Interest of David L., a Juvenile under the Age of
Seventeen, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-198473
Appeal from Pickens County
Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-013
Heard April 16, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013
AFFIRMED
Ernest C. Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood,
and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: David L. pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a
minor in the first degree and was adjudicated guilty by the family court. The court
sentenced him to a determinate commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice
until his twenty-first birthday and also required that he register as a sex offender as
required by Section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code (2007). David appeals
the registration requirement arguing it violates his rights to due process and equal
protection and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. Due Process and Equal Protection: Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267
(1973) ("When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court
that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not
thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of
constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.");
State v. Rice, 401 S.C. 330, 330, 737 S.E.2d 485, 485 (2013) ("[A] guilty
plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and claims of
violations of constitutional rights.").
2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585
S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) (noting the Court has held that sex offender
registration, regardless of the length of time, is non-punitive). State v. Walls,
348 S.C. 26, 31, 558 S.E.2d 524, 526 (2002) ("[T]he [South Carolina Sex
Offender Registry] Act is not so punitive in purpose or effect as to constitute
a criminal penalty.").
AFFIRMED.
TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James
E. Moore, concur.