State v. Gibson

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.

LaPatrick
Gibson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-295

Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. DuRant, 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 Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  LaPatrick
Gibson appeals his conviction for escape pursuant to section 24-13-410 of the
South Carolina Code Ann. (2007).  A jury found him guilty of escape, and the
trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the
trial court erred in denying Gibson's
motion for a directed verdict:  S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-410(A) (2007) ("It is unlawful for a person, lawfully confined
in prison or upon the public works of a county or while in the custody of a
superintendent, guard, or officer, to escape, to attempt to escape, or to have
in his possession tools or weapons which may be used to facilitate an escape."); Bing v. Harvey, 274 S.C. 216, 218, 262 S.E.2d 42, 43 (1980) (holding
escape from lawful pretrial custody constituted the statutory offense of
escape); State v. Walker, 311 S.C. 8, 10, 426 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Ct. App.
1992) ("[T]hose who decline to undergo legal
confinement when arrested and without force flee from lawful custody before
they are confined in jail commit the crime of escape."). 

2. As to whether the
trial court abused its discretion in denying Gibson's request to charge the unlawful
confinement language of section 24-13-410:  State v. Patterson, 367 S.C.
219, 235, 625 S.E.2d 239, 247 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the trial court must
charge only issues that are supported by evidence). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS,
JJ., concur.

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