State v. Lake ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 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 Court of Appeals
    The State, Respondent,
    v.
    Jake Dale Lake, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2016-000976
    Appeal From Lexington County
    Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-211
    Submitted June 1, 2020 – Filed July 8, 2020
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
    for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV,
    both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III,
    of Lexington, all for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Jake Dale Lake appeals the plea court's acceptance of his guilty
    plea for attempted murder, arguing the plea court erred in finding his guilty plea
    was voluntary and knowing because the record shows he did not understand that a
    specific intent to kill was a necessary element of attempted murder. We affirm
    pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: See State v.
    Dunbar, 
    356 S.C. 138
    , 142, 
    587 S.E.2d 691
    , 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to
    be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by
    the trial [court]."); State v. McKinney, 
    278 S.C. 107
    , 108, 
    292 S.E.2d 598
    , 599
    (1982) ("[F]ailure to object at trial to the involuntary [and unknowing] nature of a
    guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal."); 
    id.
     ("Absent timely
    objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty
    plea can only be attacked through the more appropriate channel of [PCR]."); In re
    Antonio H., 
    324 S.C. 120
    , 122, 
    477 S.E.2d 713
    , 714 (1996) ("The proper avenue in
    which to challenge a guilty plea which is not objected to at the time of its entry is
    through [PCR]."); State v. Barton, 
    325 S.C. 522
    , 530 n.6, 
    481 S.E.2d 439
    , 443 n.6
    (Ct. App. 1997) (stating any challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of the
    appellant's guilty plea not raised at the plea hearing could be raised only in a
    petition for PCR); State v. Felder, 
    290 S.C. 521
    , 522, 
    351 S.E.2d 852
    , 852 (1986)
    (finding PCR, rather than direct appeal, is the proper avenue for allegations of
    ineffective assistance of counsel).
    AFFIRMED.1
    LOCKEMY, C.J., and GEATHERS and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020-UP-211

Filed Date: 7/8/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024