With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence
C: 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
D: holding that a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pled guilty but for the error
C.