State v. Wheeler

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Reginald Wheeler,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Rodney A. Peeples, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-631

Submitted September 9, 2003 – Filed
October 22, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State
v. Spann, 279 S.C. 399, 402, 308 S.E.2d 518, 520 (1983) (holding upon a
motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the existence
of evidence and not its weight); State v. Thompson, 279 S.C. 405, 408,
308 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1983) (holding the circuit court must view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State); State v. Martin, 340 S.C.
597, 602, 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) (“The trial court has a duty to submit
the case to the jury where the evidence is circumstantial, if there is substantial
circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused
or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.”); State v.
Walsh, 300 S.C. 427, 429, 388 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1988) (“[T]he elements which
constitute the common law  offense of assault with intent to kill are (1) an
unlawful attempt;  (2) to commit a violent injury;  (3) to the person of another; 
(4) with malicious intent;  and (5) accompanied by the present ability to complete
the act.”), overruled on other grounds by, State v. Easler, 327
S.C. 121, 131, 489 S.E.2d 617, 623 (1997); State v. Campbell, 287 S.C.
377, 379, 339 S.E.2d 109, 109 (1985) (“The implication of malice may arise from
the use of a deadly weapon.”).

AFFIRMED.
[1]

STILWELL, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE,
JJ.,
concurring.    

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue
on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to South Carolina
Appellate Court Rules, Rule 215.