State v. Ravenel

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.

Vashaun
Ravenel, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-425

Submitted September 1, 2011 – Filed
September 20, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, 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 Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Vashaun
Ravenel appeals his conviction for attempted armed robbery, arguing the circuit
court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State
failed to present sufficient evidence he intended to rob his victim.  We
affirm.

An appellate court reviews
the denial of a directed verdict by viewing the evidence and all reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the State.  State v. Weston,
367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006).  If any direct evidence or
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the
accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the
jury.  Id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648.  The circuit court may not
consider the weight of the evidence.  Id. at 292, 625 S.E.2d at 648.  "Attempt
crimes are generally ones of specific intent such that the act constituting the
attempt must be done with the intent to commit that particular crime."  State
v. Nesbitt, 346 S.C. 226, 231, 550 S.E.2d 864, 866 (Ct. App. 2001).  "Intent is seldom susceptible to proof by direct evidence
and must ordinarily be proven by circumstantial evidence, that is, by facts and
circumstances from which intent may be inferred."  State v. Tuckness, 257
S.C. 295, 299, 185 S.E.2d 607, 608 (1971).

Here, Ravenel's victim
testified that Ravenel wore both a ski mask and a hooded sweatshirt at night,
presented a firearm, and tried to open the victim's car door twice.  We find
this testimony was substantial circumstantial evidence when, in a light most
favorable to the State, the jury could reasonably infer that Ravenel was guilty
of attempted armed robbery.  Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS,
JJ., concur.