Crowe v. Miller ( 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 Court of Appeals
Cynthia Crowe, Respondent,
v.
Michael Earl Miller, I, and Michael Earl Miller, II,
Defendants,
Of whom Michael Earl Miller, II, is the Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-212029
Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Special Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-239
Heard May 7, 2013 – Filed June 5, 2013
AFFIRMED
Jonathan McKey Milling, of Milling Law Firm, LLC, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Chad Alan McGowan and Ashley White Creech, both of
McGowan, Hood & Felder, LLC, of Rock Hill, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In this personal injury action arising from a boating accident,
Michael Earl Miller, II, appeals the dismissal of his counterclaim against Cynthia
Crowe. The trial court found that because Miller previously entered an Alford1
plea to criminal charges arising from the same events that led to Crowe's civil
action, he was collaterally estopped from asserting in his counterclaim that Crowe
was driving the boat.2
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and following authorities: Rule
220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling, order, decision or
judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal."); Rule 12(c),
SCRCP ("If, on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, matters outside the
pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be
treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56 . . .
."); State v. Herndon, Op. No. 27250 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 8, 2013) (Shearouse
Adv. Sh. No. 21 at 52, 63) (recognizing "the general consensus that an Alford plea
is merely a guilty plea with the gloss of judicial grace allowing a defendant to enter
a plea in her best interests"); Zurcher v. Bilton, 379 S.C. 132, 137, 666 S.E.2d 224,
227 (2008) (holding "the entry of an Alford plea at a criminal proceeding has the
same preclusive effect as a standard guilty plea"); Postal v. Mann, 308 S.C. 385,
387, 418 S.E.2d 322, 323 (Ct. App. 1992) ("It is well settled that parties are
judicially bound by their pleadings unless withdrawn, altered or stricken by
amendment or otherwise."). Furthermore, although Miller expressed concern
about the propriety of considering matters outside the pleadings in deciding
Crowe's motion to dismiss, he declined the trial court's offer to have the motion
scheduled as one for summary judgment at a later date. Cf. Karl Sitte Plumbing
Co. v. Darby Dev. Co. of Columbia, 295 S.C. 70, 73, 367 S.E.2d 162, 164 (Ct.
App. 1988) (holding that despite alleged irregularities in an order of reference, a
party's participation in the reference proceedings without taking exception to either
1
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
2
Miller pled guilty under Alford to operating a water vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol and causing severe bodily injury. See S.C. Code Ann. § 50-
21-113(A) (2008) ("A person who, while under the influence of alcohol . . .
operates a moving water device, or is in actual control of a moving water device
within this State and causes great bodily injury . . . of a person other than himself,
is guilty of a felony . . . .").
the reference or the master's authority waived any objection the party might have
had to the action being referred).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.