In the Matter of Yawn, Calvin

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Calvin J.
Yawn, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210426

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-330
Submitted July 1, 2013 – Filed July 24, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Welch v. Epstein, 342 S.C. 279, 299, 536 S.E.2d 408, 418 (Ct. App.
2000) ("When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, this
[c]ourt must employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence
and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.");
id. at 300, 536 S.E.2d at 418 ("The trial court must deny the motions when the
evidence yields more than one inference or its inference is in doubt."); id. at 300,
536 S.E.2d at 418 ("This [c]ourt will reverse the trial court only when there is no
evidence to support the ruling below."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-100(A) (Supp.
2012) ("The court or jury must determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the
person is a sexually violent predator."); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-30(1) (Supp.
2012) ("'Sexually violent predator' means a person who: (a) has been convicted of
a sexually violent offense; and (b) suffers from a mental abnormality or personality
disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not
confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment."); Hodges
v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 85, 533 S.E.2d 578, 581 (2000) ("Where the statute's
language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a clear and definite meaning, the
rules of statutory interpretation are not needed and the court has no right to impose
another meaning.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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