State v. Brockington

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Montrell
Brockington, Appellant.

Appeal From Florence County

 Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2009-UP-039

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
15, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Edgar L. Clements, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Montrell
Brockington was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana within proximity of a school or
park.  On appeal, Brockington argues the
trial court erred when charging the law on constructive possession by failing
to instruct the jury it was free to accept or reject the permissive inference
of knowledge and possession.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Adkins,
353 S.C. 312, 318, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003) (“A jury charge is correct if, when the
charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately
covers the law.”); Id. at 318-19,
577 S.E.2d at 464 (“The substance of the law is what must be charged
to the jury, not any particular verbiage.”).

AFFIRMED.

Huff, Thomas, and
Lockemy, JJ., concur.

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