State v. Jiovaani A. Gallegos

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.

Jiovaani Aranza Gallegos, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000689

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-170
Submitted May 1, 2025 – Filed May 28, 2025

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of
Bluffton, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jiovaani Aranza Gallegos appeals his conviction and
twenty-year sentence for being a habitual traffic offender with death resulting
(HTODR). 1 We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not err by denying Gallegos's motion for a directed
verdict for HTODR. See State v. Elders, 386 S.C. 474, 480, 688 S.E.2d 857, 860
(Ct. App. 2010) ("When reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, an
appellate court 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."); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-1-1105(B) (2018) ("A[] habitual
offender who drives a motor vehicle on any public highway of this State when the
offender's license to drive has been canceled, suspended, or revoked, and when
driving does any act forbidden by law or neglects any duty imposed by law in the
driving of the motor vehicle, which act or neglect proximately causes great bodily
injury or death to a person other than himself, is guilty of a felony . . . ." (emphasis
added)). The State presented substantial circumstantial evidence that Gallegos
failed to maintain a safe distance from Victim, who was on a bicycle at the time of
the collision. See State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) ("A
defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence
of the offense charged."); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-3435 (2018) ("A driver of a
motor vehicle must at all times maintain a safe operating distance between the
motor vehicle and a bicycle.").

First, the State provided evidence that Gallegos's headlights were functional and
switched on the same night as the collision because Gallegos's next-door neighbor
reported seeing "headlights coming through" his window at 4:00 a.m. Second, the
State presented evidence that Gallegos collided with Victim by showing the hole in
Gallegos's windshield and recovery of Victim's hairs from the dashboard and
entertainment console. Third, the State's expert witness opined that black streaks
on Gallegos's right front side headlight along with the damage to the rear tire of
Victim's bicycle indicated the front of Gallegos's van collided with the rear of
Victim's bicycle. There was also evidence suggesting the collision occurred in the
middle of the roadway. These things, especially when combined, suggest Gallegos
did not maintain a safe distance from the Victim. See State v. Walker, 349 S.C. 49,
53, 562 S.E.2d 313, 315 (2002) ("In reviewing a motion for directed verdict, the
trial judge is concerned with the existence of the evidence, not with its weight.");
State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 46, 515 S.E.2d 525, 531 (1999) ("On appeal from

1
Gallegos was also convicted of hit and run under section 56-5-1210(A)(3) of the
South Carolina Code (2018). The hit and run charge is not at issue on appeal.
the denial of a directed verdict, [an appellate court] must view the evidence in a
light most favorable to the State."); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529
S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) ("If the State presents any evidence which reasonably tends
to prove the defendant's guilt, or from which the defendant's guilt could be fairly
and logically deduced, the case must go to the jury.").

AFFIRMED. 2

THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.