DocketNumber： 2008-UP-092
Filed Date： 2/8/2008
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/22/2024
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant.
Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-092
Submitted February 1, 2008 Filed
February 8, 2008
AFFIRMED
Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia; for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Nesbitt entered an Alford[1] plea to two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN) and two counts of resisting arrest. Nesbitt appeals, arguing his persistent denial of the States factual allegations rendered his plea invalid. We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) ([W]hile most pleas of guilty consist of both a waiver of trial and an express admission of guilt, the latter element is not a constitutional requisite to the imposition of criminal penalty. An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime.); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (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 Post-Conviction Relief.).
AFFIRMED.
HEARN,
C.J., and PIEPER, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.
[1] North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.