State v. Goodine

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.

Walter Goodine, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212261

Appeal From Oconee County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-408
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 6, 2013

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006)
("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with
the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); Jones v. Lott, 379 S.C.
285, 288-89, 665 S.E.2d 642, 644 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The appellate court will
reverse the trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion only when there is no
evidence to support the ruling or where the ruling is controlled by an error of
law."); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 202, 284 S.E.2d 773, 774-75 (1981)
("Conviction of possession of [a controlled substance] requires proof of
possession-either actual or constructive, coupled with knowledge of its presence.
Actual possession occurs when the drugs are found to be in the actual physical
custody of the person charged with possession. To prove constructive possession,
the State must show a defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise
dominion and control, over the [drugs]. Constructive possession can be established
by circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and possession may be shared.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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