State v. Blakely

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.

Nathaniel
Blakely, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-685

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 11, 2008   

AFFIRMED

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 Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Nathaniel
Blakely appeals his conviction of possession of crack cocaine and sentence of
five years, suspended upon the service of three years imprisonment and three
years probation.  Blakely argues the trial court erred by failing to direct a
verdict in his favor.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. McHoney, 344
S.C. 85, 544 S.E.2d 30 (2001) (finding a case is properly submitted to the jury
over a motion for directed verdict when any direct or substantial
circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove guilt of the accused
exists); State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 635 S.E.2d 18 (2006) (holding
constructive possession is shown by proving the defendant had dominion and
control, or the right to exercise dominion or control over the drugs;
constructive possession can be proven through direct or circumstantial
evidence; and when drugs are found in the premises under the defendant’s control,
knowledge and possession may be inferred).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON,
HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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