Hill Rivers, the appellant herein, at the 1972 October Term of the Court of General Sessions for Allendale County, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of assault and battery with intent to kill and was sentenced to imprisоnment for a term of ten years.
The appellant, on September 30, 1973, filed his application for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Section 17-601 et seq., of the Code, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntarily made and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. He asked that he be granted a new trial.
The State duly filed a reply, incorporating the transcript of the proceedings had at the time thе appellant entered his plea of guilty and asserting that there were no facts alleged in the petition when compared with the transcript of record, that entitled the appellant to any relief.
The application for post-conviction relief was heard by the Honorable William L. Rhodes, Jr., Resident Judgе, who *123 dismissed and denied the application for post-conviction relief but, pursuant to Section 17-606 of thе Code, as amended, granted the appellant fifteen days from the date of the order to show cause why it should not become final. The appellant, thereafter, filed a reply reasserting his former contentions. The trial judge found that the response failed to supply any reason for altering the original order and finally dismissed the application of the appellant. This appeal followed.
The recоrd shows that the appellant was a prisoner in the Allendale County Jail in April, 1971, awaiting trial on a charge of housebreaking and grand larceny, of which he was subsequently convicted and given a six year sentence. Whilе so incarcerated, the appellant made an attack with a mop handle on a fellow рrisoner, who, at the time, was asleep in his bunk. As a result of this vicious beating, the victim is now nothing more than a vegetable.
The appellant was sent to the Central Corrections Institution in Columbia for the service of his sentenсe on the housebreaking and grand larceny charge. In April, 1972, he was returned to Allendale County for trial for thе assualt and battery committed on his fellow prisoner. Counsel was duly appointed to represent him, and, such counsel, recognizing that he could not properly represent him on the date of his appointmеnt, asked for a continuance, which motion was granted by the trial judge, in order that he might fully prepare for triаl.
The case was called for trial at the 1972 October Term of the Court of General Sessions for Allendale County, at which time, pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, the appellant tendered a plеa of guilty to the charge of assault and battery with intent to kill. Prior to the acceptance of the plea of guilty, the trial judge, in accordance with the rule enunciated in
Boykin v.
Alabama,
The general rule is that a plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly made, constitutes a waiver of nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, including claims of violation of constitutional rights prior to the plea. An accused also waives the right to trial and the incidents thereof and the constitutional guarantees with respect to criminal prosecutions.
State v. Fuller,
254 S. C. 260,
The record in the present case shows that the guilty plea of the appellant represented a free and intelligent waiver of his cоnstitutional rights, and such plea was voluntarily and understandingly made. All of this *125 is evidenced by the stenographic transcript made at the time the plea of guilty was entered.
A careful review of this record convinces us .that the trial judge correctly concluded that the appellant was competently represented by сounsel, and that his plea of guilty was freely, voluntarily and understandingly entered in accordance with the plea-bargain agreement.
The exceptions of the appellant are overruled and the judgment below is,
Affirmed.