State v. Williams

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.

Daevon Hezzie Williams, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002714

Appeal From Dillon County
William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-513
Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed December 14, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin,
of Columbia; and Solicitor William Benjamin Rogers,
Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); 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. Bennett, 415 S.C. 232, 237, 781 S.E.2d 352, 354
(2016) ("[I]n ruling on a directed verdict motion where the State relies on
circumstantial evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence presented
is sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt."); State v. Cooper, 279 S.C. 301, 302, 306 S.E.2d 598, 599
(1983) (holding that proof the accused was in possession of stolen property near
the time of loss is circumstantial evidence supporting the inference the accused is
guilty of larceny); State v. Brown, 402 S.C. 119, 131, 740 S.E.2d 493, 499 (2013)
("[A] property owner is competent to testify regarding the value of damaged or
stolen property . . . [, and] a property owner's testimony alone is sufficient to
support a conviction for grand larceny.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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