State v. Inman

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.

James Matthew Inman, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-337

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J.
Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Matthew Inman was indicted and found guilty for escape.  Inman
appeals his conviction, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion
for directed verdict.  Because Inman's indictment alleged both statutory and
common law escape, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 32, 667 S.E.2d 728, 732-33 (2008) ("When ruling
on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the
existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); id. at
32, S.E.2d at 733 ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the
[S]tate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v.
Walker, 311 S.C. 8, 10, 426 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Ct. App. 1992)
(explaining when reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, this court
"need not reach the question of whether the State proved the statutory
offense" when the indictment charges both common law and statutory
escape).

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS,
GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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