Legal Opinion

Medlin v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 20, 1981No. 21520PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Ness, Justice:

This is a post-conviction appeal. The trial court denied the application. We affirm on the basis of my views in Harden v. *541State of South Carolina, S. C., 277 S. E. (2d) 692 (1981), concurred in by Lewis, C. J., that a trial judge may participate in the plea bargaining process if he follows guidelines to minimize the fear of coercion.

The guidelines as enunciated in Harden v. State, supra are as follows:

“Standard 14-3.3. Responsibilities of the judge(a) The judge should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first inquiring whether the parties have arrived at a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harden v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. ThriftSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1994
  2. State v. RiddleSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. GatesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1989
  4. Medlin v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. BlakelyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2013

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API