State v. Glover

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.

Clarence
Glover, Appellant.

Appeal From Hampton County

 John  L.  Breeden, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-671

Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed
December 9, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, 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 Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor I. McDuffie 
Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Glover appeals his
conviction of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, arguing the
trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict.  Specifically, Glover
argues the State did not present any evidence tending to prove he actually or
constructively possessed the cocaine found by police.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,
evidence exists which reasonably tends to prove Glover’s guilt.  Two officers
testified Glover was present when the drugs were discovered.  Furthermore,
there were eleven cell phones discovered, indicative of a drug operation, and
Glover was found with $6,000 on his person.  Thus, sufficient evidence exists
to suggest the drugs were under Glover’s control and knowledge.  Accordingly,
the trial court did not err by failing to direct a verdict and properly
submitted this case to the jury.  See State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) (“If there is any
direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to
prove guilt of the accused, we must find the case was properly submitted to the
jury.”); State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 329, 635 S.E.2d 18, 19 (2006)
(holding constructive possession can be proven through direct or circumstantial
evidence).

AFFIRMED.[1]

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

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