State v. Barton

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent

v.

Kevin J. Barton,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-187

Submitted January 10, 2003 – Filed March 11, 2003

AFFIRMED

Chief Attorney Daniel T. Stacey, of SC Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia; for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kevin Barton was convicted
of distributing crack cocaine and distribution of crack cocaine within one-half
mile of a school.  Barton was sentenced to five years on the general distribution
charge and ten years on the school charge, running concurrently.  Barton appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred when it overruled Barton’s motion for a directed
verdict because the State’s evidence failed to prove the identity of Barton
as the person who distributed the crack cocaine. 

We affirm Barton’s conviction pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Williams,
321 S.C. 327, 332, 468 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1996) (“[A] trial court has a duty to
submit the case to the jury where the evidence is circumstantial if there is
any substantial evidence that reasonably tends to prove the guilt of
the accused or from which his guilt may fairly and logically be deduced.”);
State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 46, 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) (“On a
motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case, the trial court is concerned
with the existence or non-existence of evidence, not its weight.  If the State
presents any evidence which reasonably tends to prove defendant’s guilt,
or from which defendant’s guilt could be fairly and logically deduced, the case
must go to the jury.”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); State v. Kelsey,
331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) (“In reviewing the denial of a motion
for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate
court must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury.”).

Here, viewing the evidence in a light
most favorable to the State, Officer Johnson’s description of the person who
had assisted James Williams with the drug transaction reasonably matched Barton’s
appearance, and Barton’s proximity to the scene and time of the drug transaction
constituted evidence that he was the person who assisted Williams in the drug
transaction.  This was sufficient evidence to overcome the directed verdict
motion and to submit the case to the jury.

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY, and SHULER, JJ.,
concur.