MO-013 - In the Interest of David L.
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 Supreme Court In the Interest of David L., a Juvenile under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-198473 Appeal from Pickens County Alvin D. Johnson, Family Court Judge Memorandum Opinion No. 2013-MO-013 Heard April 16, 2013 Filed April 24, 2013 AFFIRMED Ernest C. Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General J. Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: David L. pled guilty to criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree and was adjudicated guilty by the family court. The court sentenced him to a determinate commitment in the Department of Juvenile Justice until his twenty-first birthday and also required that he register as a sex offender as required by Section 23-3-430 of the South Carolina Code (2007). David appeals the registration requirement arguing it violates his rights to due process and equal protection and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. Due Process and Equal Protection: Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) ("When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea."); State v. Rice, 401 S.C. 330, 330, 737 S.E.2d 485, 485 (2013) ("[A] guilty plea constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and claims of violations of constitutional rights."). 2. Cruel and Unusual Punishment: In re Ronnie A., 355 S.C. 407, 409, 585 S.E.2d 311, 312 (2003) (noting the Court has held that sex offender registration, regardless of the length of time, is non-punitive). State v. Walls, 348 S.C. 26, 31, 558 S.E.2d 524, 526 (2002) ("[T]he [South Carolina Sex Offender Registry] Act is not so punitive in purpose or effect as to constitute a criminal penalty."). AFFIRMED. TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE, HEARN, JJ., and Acting Justice James E. Moore, concur.
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.
