State v. Cameron

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.

Hazard Cameron, Appellant.

Appeal From Williamsburg County

George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-278

Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9,
2012

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 William M. Blitch, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Hazard
Cameron appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred
in refusing to (1) charge the jury the State must prove an "intent to
steal" as an element of armed robbery and (2) require the State, as part
of its closing argument, to open on the law and inform the jury that armed
robbery carries a mandatory minimum sentence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the
trial court's jury charge was in error: State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526,
549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) ("In reviewing jury charges for error,
[this Court] must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light
of the evidence and issues presented at trial. A jury charge is correct if,
when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and
adequately covers the law." (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).

2. As to whether the
trial court erred in refusing to require the State to instruct the jury on
sentencing: State v. Galbreath, 359 S.C. 398, 406, 597 S.E.2d 845, 849
(Ct. App. 2004) ("In South Carolina[,] determining guilt or innocence is
the duty of the jury, whereas sentencing is the duty of the court.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and
LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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