State v. Hemingway

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Leroy Deon Hemingway,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

James E. Brogdon, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-002

Submitted October 22, 2002 – Filed January
6, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Tara S. Taggart, of Columbia,
for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; &
Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: As to Issues I and
II: State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) (“In reviewing
the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in
the light most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or
any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt
of the accused, an appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted
to the jury.  In ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court
is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight.” (internal citations
omitted)); State v. Green, 350 S.C. 580, 585, 567 S.E.2d 505, 508 (Ct.
App. 2002) (“A motion for directed verdict, therefore, contests the sufficiency
of the State’s properly admitted evidence.  On the other hand, the appropriate
vehicle for challenging the admissibility of evidence based on an alleged search
and seizure violation is a motion to suppress.”); see State v. Ballenger,
322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (holding there was sufficient
evidence of possession where defendant appeared to be involved in drug transaction,
fled from police, drugs were found on ground in location where defendant fell,
these drugs were not hidden, and no other people were in the area).

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

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