green
Positive treatment
Issue: separation of powers doctrineSC ↗
Issue: double jeopardy clauseSC ↗
Issue: guilty plea hearingSC ↗
Quoted verbatim 7×
47.7 score
G Cite
cited 7× by 4 distinct cases, 2014–2025 ·
…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 pcr.
at p. 599
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Patrick L. Booker
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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 pcr.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Richardson v. State of SC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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 pcr.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Lake
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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 pcr.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Missouri v. Williams
absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through . . . a petition for post-conviction relief.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lindsey v. State
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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 pcr.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Jones
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Carruthers
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
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.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Phillips
Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1981) (holding that failure to assert before the plea court that a guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent precludes consideration of the issue on appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McFadden
Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [plea] court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (requiring an appellant assert the involuntariness of a guilty plea before the trial court to preserve the issue for appellate review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Turner
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (per curiam) ("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."); Charleston Cty.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mack
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding the failure to object to the involuntary or unknowing nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garrett v. State
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In re Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122 , 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (holding a defendant must raise an issue at the time of the plea to preserve it for appeal); State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding the "failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Sobreo
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (finding the appellant's failure to object to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea at trial precludes consideration of the issue on appeal); In the Interest of Antonio H. , 324 S.C. 120, 122 , 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) ("The proper avenue in which to challenge a guilty plea which is not objected to at the time of its entry is through post-conviction relief.").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Rodney Bettis
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Andrew Osimbo
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked AFFIRMED.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Harold Griffin
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent a timely objection at a plea proceeding, the sufficiency of a guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief); State v. Lee , 350 S.C. 125, 130 , 564 S.E.2d 372, 375 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Singleton
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent a timely objection at a plea proceeding, the sufficiency of a guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Cook
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent timely objection at a plea proceeding, the sufficiency of a guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Thompson
As to Thompsons guilty pleas: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through post-conviction relief); State v. Truesdale , 278 S.C. 368, 370 , 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1982); (Pleas of guilty are unconditional, and if an accused attempts to attach any condition or qualification thereto, the trial court should direct a plea of not guilty.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Timmons
We dismiss[1] his appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating absent a timely objection during guilty plea, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a plea can be attacked only through the avenue of post-conviction relief); State v. Barton , 325 S.C. 522 , 530 n.6, 481 S.E.2d 439 , 443 n.6 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating any challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of a guilty plea can be raised only in a petition for post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Salters
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Passaro , 350 S.C. 499, 505-06 , 567 S.E.2d 862, 866 (2002) (explaining that a freely and voluntarily entered plea of guilty acts as a waiver of all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses); 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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Freeman
Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.); 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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mills
Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.); 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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Fulton
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: 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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Roberts
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority: 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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Nesbitt
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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams
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.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bird
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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.); State v. Bradley , 263 S.C. 223, 226 , 209 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974) (holding appellate court will not consider claim that guilty plea was involuntarily entered if defendant fails to raise it in trial court).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Interest of Edward V.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding that absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea can only be attacked through post-conviction relief); In the Interest of Arisha K.S. , 331 S.C. 288, 296 , 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (affirming a thirteen-year-old juveniles guilty plea because her counsel did not object to the guilty plea and thus the case law mandated affirmance).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McElveen
A failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982); see , e.g. , State v. Bradley , 263 S.C. 223, 226 , 209 S.E.2d 435, 436 (1974) (failure to assert at trial a guilty plea was involuntarily entered precludes consideration of such a claim on appeal); In re Arisha K.S. , 331 S.C. 288, 293 , 501 S.E.2d 128, 131 (Ct. App. 1998) ([C]ounsel [is required] to make an objection to the guilty plea before a defendant is entitled to a review of the voluntariness of…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wilson
State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Philbeck
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: ISSUE 1: State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding failure to object at trial to the involuntary or unknowing nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal, especially where a defendant is represented by counsel; 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); ISSUE 2: State v. Dunbar , 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 6…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Barnes
State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mitchell
State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Adkins
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR and the following authorities: State v. Barton , 325 S.C. 522 , 530 n. 6, 481 S.E.2d 439 , 443 n. 6 (Ct. App. 1997) (any challenge to the knowing and voluntary nature of appellant’s plea could be raised only in a petition for post-conviction relief); In the Interest of Antonio H. , 324 S.C. 120, 122 , 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (where sole issue before appellate court was competency to enter plea and issue was not raised at the time of the plea, issue was procedurally barred; proper avenue to challenge a guilty plea which was not objected to at the…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Eddy
State v. Mckinney , 278 S.C. 107, 107 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 598 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Kearse
(2×)
See State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding the voluntariness of a guilty plea must be raised by objection to the trial court in order to be preserved for appeal).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Bickham
(4×)
See State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (failure to assert before trial court that plea was not knowing and intelligent precludes consideration of the issue on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Thomason
(2×)
See State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107 , 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982) (absent a timely objection at the plea proceeding, the unknowing and involuntary nature of a guilty plea may properly be attacked only through the more appropriate means of post-conviction relief).- Accordingly, by pleading guilty instead of proceeding to trial and attempting to show the existence of only one offense, Thomason waived his double jeopardy claim.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mack
(2×)
See State v. Adams , 354 S.C. 361, 380 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 795 (Ct. App. 2003) (Arguments not raised to or ruled upon by the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.); see also State v. McKinney , 278 S.C. 107, 108 , 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (stating that absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lopez
(2×)
State v. Williams, 303 S.C. 410 , 401 S.E.2d 168 (1991) (defendant must object at first opportunity to preserve issue for appellate review; alleged error must be raised to and ruled on by trial judge); see also State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107 , 292 S.E.2d 598 (1982) (absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through the more appropriate channel of post-conviction relief).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Antonio H.
(2×)
See, e.g., State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107 , 292 S.E. (2d) 598 (1982) (failure to object to unknowing or involuntary nature of guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal); Whetsell v. State, 276 S.C. 295 , 277 S.E. (2d) 891 (1981) (guilty plea freely and voluntarily entered into acts as a waiver of all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
William Michael McKINNEY, Appellant
v.
William Michael McKINNEY, Appellant
21726.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jun 9, 1982.
Asst. Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant., Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser and Martha L. McElveen, Columbia, and Acting Sol. William B. Traxler, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 61 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (7)
Per Curiam:
Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery and was sentenced to nine (9) years’ imprisonment, suspended upon the service of three (3) years and five (5) years’ probation. Appellant now alleges his guilty plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered. We dismiss the appeal for the reason set forth below.
Appellant failed to assert before the trial court that his guilty plea was not knowing and intelligent as required by Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. (2d) 274 (1969). In State v. Bradley, 263 S. C. 223, 209 S. E. (2d) 435 (1974), we held failure to object at trial to the involuntary nature of a guilty plea precludes consideration of the issue on appeal. We now extend that holding to include the unknowing nature of a plea, especially where, as in the present case, a defendant is represented by counsel. Our refusal to hear this issue on direct appeal is consistent with the general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection. State v. Sullivan, S. C. 282 S. E. (2d) 838 (1981). That rule can be applied to federal constitutional claims. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72, 97 S. Ct. 2497, 53 L. Ed. (2d) 594 (1977).
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.
Appeal dismissed.