State v. Herbert

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Solomon F. Herbert       
Appellant.

Appeal From Bamberg County

William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-747

Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December
17, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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,
Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara
R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Solomon F. Herbert was convicted
of second-degree burglary in January 2003.  Herbert appeals his conviction,
arguing the trial court erred in refusing to give an adequate charge on circumstantial
evidence.  The trial court charged State v. Grippon, 327 S.C. 79, 489
S.E.2d 462 (1997). Herbert requested the trial court charge circumstantial evidence
pursuant to State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 156, 508 S.E.2d
857, 868 (1998) (“Our supreme court has identified two appropriate ways to charge
circumstantial evidence.”); State v. Cherry, 348 S.C. 281, 287, 559 S.E.2d
297, 299 (Ct.App. 2001) (“We cannot fault the trial court for utilizing a charge
recently specifically approved by the supreme court.”) 

AFFIRMED.

STILWELL, BEATTY, and CURETON, JJ., concur.

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