is not reversible unless prejudice is shown. State v. Landon, 370 S.C. 103, 108, 634 S.E.2d 660, 663 (2006). 286 We find no prejudice to Caldwell such as would entitle him to suppression of the statements. The statements, as referred to in Officer Porter’s supplemental report, were admittedly turned over to the defense in April 2006. Caldwell contends the State’s failure to disclose the alleged statements until that time prejudiced him because, after that point, the opportunity afforded to him to plead to only a single indictment had passed. However, a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. State v. Chisolm, 312 S.C. 235, 237, 439 S.E.2d 850, 852 (1994). Thus, Caldwell was not prejudiced by the delayed disclosure. See Chisolm, 312 S.C. at 237-38, 439 S.E.2d at 851-52 (<HOLDING>). IV. Admission of Testimony on How the Victims
recognizing that both parties to a plea bargain make various concessions and gain certain advantages during plea negotiations and underscoring that a criminal defendant having availed himself of the advantages of a plea agreement cannot welch on his part of the bargain internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding even though assistant solicitor acted inappropriately by communicating with a party known to be represented by counsel and by surreptitiously tape recording the conversation assertion appellant was prejudiced as evidenced by the absence of plea negotiations was insufficient inasmuch as a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice holding that the defendant was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel when a codefendants plea bargain including a promise to testify against the defendant was negotiated by the law partner of the defendants counsel holding that a criminal defendant can waive important constitutional rights by entering into a plea bargain