State v. Wolfe

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 Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Rodriquez J. Wolfe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000433

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Maité Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-238
Submitted May 1, 2017 – Filed June 7, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003)
("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been
raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit court]. Issues not raised and ruled upon in
the [circuit] court will not be considered on appeal."); State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C.
442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding an issue not raised to the
circuit court in support of a directed verdict motion is not preserved for appellate
review); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When
ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the [circuit] court is concerned with the
existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); id. ("When reviewing a
denial of a directed verdict, [the appellate court] views the evidence and all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [S]tate."); id. at 292-93,
625 S.E.2d at 648 ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [c]ourt must find
the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Smith, 316 S.C. 53, 55, 447
S.E.2d 175, 176 (1993) ("It is well settled that the grant or refusal of a new trial is
within the discretion of the [circuit court] and will not be disturbed on appeal
absent a clear abuse of that discretion."); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 202, 284
S.E.2d 773, 774 (1981) ("Conviction of possession of [drugs] requires proof of
possession—either actual or constructive, coupled with knowledge of its
presence."); State v. Lane, 271 S.C. 68, 73, 245 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1978)
("Constructive possession, or control, occurs when the accused has 'dominion and
control over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs were
found . . . .'" (quoting State v. Ellis, 263 S.C. 12, 22, 207 S.E.2d 408, 413 (1974)));
Hudson, 277 S.C. at 203, 284 S.E.2d at 775 ("Where contraband materials are
found on premises under the control of the accused, this fact in and of itself gives
rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry
the case to the jury."); State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 45, 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct.
App. 1995) ("The knowledge element may be proved circumstantially by evidence
of acts, declarations, or conduct of the accused from which an inference may be
drawn that the accused knew of the existence of the prohibited substance.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.