Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

278 S.C. 148

292 S.E.2d 795

State v. Riddle

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided June 17, 1982

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1982-06-17

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2009

18 state decisions

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · State v. Hazel · State v. Neal

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-06-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ness and Harwell, Justices,

¶1(dissenting):

¶2We respectfully dissent and would reverse and allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.

¶3The 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, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 274 (1969); State v. Peeler, S. C. 283 S. E. (2d) 826 (1981). When the judge discovered the misunderstanding, he should have allowed appellant to withdraw the plea. His failure to do so was an abuse of discretion. Hazel. See also State v. Smith, S. C. 280 S. E. (2d) 200 (1981).

/278/sc/148 · .json · Public domain