State v. Woods

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.

Daniel C.
Woods, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-328

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 24,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor
Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Daniel C.
Woods appeals his convictions for grand larceny and second-degree burglary. 
Woods argues the trial court erred by (1) giving the "hand of one is the hand
of all" jury instruction in response to the jury's question when the trial
court had previously found the jury charge inapplicable, and (2) allowing
an amended indictment for grand larceny.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred by giving the "hand of one is the hand of
all" jury instruction: State v. Rye, 375 S.C. 119, 123, 651 S.E.2d
321, 323 (2007) ("A trial court's decision regarding jury charges will not
be reversed where the charges, as a whole, properly charged the law to be
applied."); State v. Lee, 298 S.C. 362, 364, 380 S.E.2d 834, 836 (1989)
("The law to be charged to the jury is to be determined by the evidence
presented at trial."); State v. Burton¸ 302 S.C. 494, 498, 397
S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) ("The charge is sufficient if, when considered as a
whole, it covers the law applicable to the case.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred
in admitting the amended indictment for grand larceny: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is
deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.") (quotation marks and
citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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