State v. Haworth

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.

Nancy Haworth, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-210208

Appeal From Pickens County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-434
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 27, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Because there was both direct and circumstantial evidence in the
record tending to prove Nancy Haworth was guilty of aiding and abetting and
conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as described in section 44-53-375(B) of
the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2012), the decision of the trial court is affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cherry,
361 S.C. 588, 593-94, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) ("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 the case was properly submitted to the
jury."); State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 555, 564 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2002) (ruling an
appellate court may reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict
only "if there is no evidence to support the trial court's ruling"); State v. Massey,
267 S.C. 432, 442, 229 S.E.2d 332, 337 (1976) ("In deciding whether the trial
court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant in a criminal case,
[the appellate court] must view the testimony in the light most favorable to the
State.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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