State v. McConnell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Harris McConnell, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2010-180589 Appeal From Newberry County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-410 Submitted July 2, 2012 Filed July 11, 2012 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Harris McConnell appeals his conviction of armed robbery, arguing the plea court erred in refusing to enforce a plea agreement that had been withdrawn because McConnell detrimentally relied on the agreement. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Fuller, 254 S.C. 260, 266, 174 S.E.2d 774, 777 (1970) ("The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses . . . ."), vacated in part sub nom. Fuller v. South Carolina, 408 U.S. 937 (1972); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316, 320, 428 S.E.2d 871, 873 (1993) ("Appellate courts are bound by fact findings in response to motions preliminary to trial when the findings are supported by the evidence and not clearly wrong or controlled by error of law."); Reed v. Becka, 333 S.C. 676, 689, 511 S.E.2d 396, 404 (Ct. App. 1999) ("A defendant relies upon a solicitor's plea offer by taking some substantial step or accepting serious risk of an adverse result following acceptance of the plea offer."). AFFIRMED. PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.