Hunt v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

William Hunt, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From McCormick County

 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-271

Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed May 19,
2008   

AFFIRMED

Tara Dawn Shurling, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Daniel E. Grigg, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for
post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because
there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner
did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we
grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and proceed with a review of the
direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d
60 (1986).[1]

Petitioner argues the trial judge erred in denying his motion for
a continuance and denying his motion for a
directed verdict on the charge of possession of a firearm during the commission
of a violent crime.  We
affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

Issue 1: State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 464, 545
S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (holding an abuse of discretion
occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support
or are controlled by an error of law); State v. Wyatt, 317 S.C.
370, 373, 453 S.E.2d 890, 891 (1995) (error without prejudice does not warrant
reversal); State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462, 385 S.E.2d 832,
834 (1989) (holding the denial of a motion for a continuance is within the
sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear
showing of an abuse of discretion); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C.
405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859, (1957) (“[R]eversals of refusal of continuance
are about as rare as the proverbial hens’ teeth.”).

 Issue
2: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Supp. 2007) (categorizing trafficking of
marijuana as a violent crime); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-490(A) (Supp. 2007) (“If
a person is in possession of a firearm or visibly displays what appears to be a
firearm . . . and is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a violent
crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, he must be imprisoned five years, in
addition to the punishment provided for the principal crime.”); State v.
Parris, 363 S.C. 477, 481, 611 S.E.2d 501, 502-03 (2005) (holding in
reviewing a directed verdict
motion, the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence,
not its weight);  State v. Zeigler, 364 S.C. 94, 102, 610 S.E.2d 859,
863 (Ct. App. 2005) (“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 the case was properly submitted to the jury.”); State
v. Brown, 360 S.C. 581, 586, 602 S.E.2d 392, 395 (2004) (holding a
defendant is entitled to a directed verdict
when the State fails to present evidence on a material
element of the offense charged, and the evidence must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the State).    

AFFIRMED.  

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1]  In his petition for a writ of certiorari, Petitioner
also raises three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  We deny the
petition for certiorari on this issue.

[2]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in
resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.