State v. Drake

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.

Aljaquon Drake, Appellant.

Appeal From Jasper County

Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-388  

Submitted August 11, 2011 – Filed August
15, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor I. McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Aljaquon
Drake appeals his convictions on two counts of first-degree burglary.  On
appeal, he argues the trial court erred in:

(1) denying his motions for
directed verdict and (2) consolidating the burglaries into one trial.  We
affirm.[1]

1.  We hold
the trial court properly denied Drake's motions for directed verdict on both
burglaries.  The victims of the burglaries testified their houses
were burglarized and items were stolen, and Drake had possession of or was near
the stolen items shortly after the period of time during which the burglaries
could have been committed.  See State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539,
543, 243 S.E.2d 195, 197 (1978) (finding testimony as to the occurrence of the
burglary together with testimony as to the accused's possession of the stolen
items form "a sufficient basis from which the [accused]'s guilt could be
fairly and logically deduced, thus requiring the submission of the case to the
jury"); State v. Nall, 304 S.C. 332, 336, 404 S.E.2d. 202, 205 (Ct.
App. 1991) ("The evidence is sufficient to go to the jury if, viewed in
the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of fact could find the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.").

2.  We hold
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the two
burglaries into one trial.  Both houses burglarized were secluded, located
within walking distance from each other; the burglaries took place within a few
hours; small, inexpensive items were stolen from each; and no prejudice
resulted to Drake's substantive rights, thus meeting the standard for consolidating
offenses for trial.  See State
v. Simmons, 352 S.C. 342, 350, 573
S.E.2d 856, 860 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating separately charged offenses, which are
"of the same general nature involving connected transactions closely
related in kind, place and character" may be tried together, at the trial
court's discretion, "if the defendant's substantive rights would not be
prejudiced").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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