Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Riddle

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 17, 1982No. 21738Published

1Dissent

Ness and Harwell, Justices,

(dissenting):

We respectfully dissent and would reverse and allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.

The withdrawal of a guilty plea is generally within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Neal, 267 S. C. 53, *151226 S. E. (2d) 236 (1975). We believe appellant’s plea was not entered knowingly because he misunderstood the scope of the agreement on sentencing. Cf. State v. Hazel, 275 S. C. 392, 271 S. E. (2d) 602 (1980) (plea not knowingly made because defendant misunderstood requirement of statutory mandatory sentence). See also Boykin v. Alabama,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. HazelSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1980
  4. Peeler v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. NealSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1975

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API