State v. Winchester

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.

Billy Walter Winchester, Appellant.

Appeal From Oconee County

Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-304 

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 17,
2011

AFFIRMED

 Appellate Defender Elizabeth
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Billy
Walter Winchester appeals his conviction for resisting arrest with a deadly
weapon, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) denying Winchester's motion for
a directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to prove he possessed
the requisite mens rea; and (2) denying Winchester's request for a jury charge
that Winchester did not know police officers were attempting to serve an arrest
warrant on him.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit
court erred in denying Winchester's motion for a directed verdict on the ground
that the State failed to prove he possessed the requisite mens rea:  State
v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (holding in the
review of the denial of a defendant's directed verdict motion "if there is
any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably
tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [appellate c]ourt must find the
case was properly submitted to the jury"). 

2.  As to whether
the circuit court erred in denying
Winchester's request for a jury charge:  State v. Robinson, 306 S.C.
399, 401, 412 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1991) ("The [circuit court] must
charge the jury with the 'current and correct law' of the State.");  State
v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("To
warrant reversal, [the circuit court's] refusal to give a requested jury charge
must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. 

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