and chooses the latter, he ought not, when defeated on the latter,-when found guilty of the crime charged,-to be permitted to go back to the former, and inquire as to the manner and means by which the charge was presented. Gentry, 363 S.C. at 102, 610 S.E.2d at 499-500 (quoting State v. Faile, 43 S.C. 52, 59-60, 20 S.E. 798, 801 (1895), overruled, on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991)). Pursuant to Geidry, an indictment reputed to be insufficient no longer raises a question of subject matter jurisdiction; rather, it raises a question of whether a defendant properly received notice he would be tried for a particular crime. See Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09, 611 S.E.2d at 516-17; see also State v. Smalls, 364 S.C. 343, 346-48, 613 S.E.2d 754, 756-57 (2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Sufficiency of the Indictment A challenge
holding defendant who pled guilty to embezzling 957000 was not precluded from contesting damages in the civil action because the amount was not a material fact of the indictment on which the guilty plea was based holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty holding that in conjunction an information with a narrow charge and an abstract of judgment indicating that a defendant pled guilty to that charge prove the precise elements of the offense to which the defendant pled guilty