State v. Miller

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.

Phillip Miles Miller, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-326

Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 15,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Michelle Parsons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills
Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Phillip Miles Miller was found guilty of
second-degree burglary and petit larceny and sentenced to life without parole
and ten years respectively.  He appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in
denying his motions for a new trial and for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b) and the following authority:

1.  As to the motion for
new trial:  State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 157-58, 508 S.E.2d 857, 869 (1998)
("To prevail on a motion for a new trial based on after discovered
evidence, a defendant must show (1) the evidence is such as will probably
change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) the evidence has been
discovered since the trial; (3) the evidence could not have been discovered
prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) the evidence is material;
and (5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching.");  Id. ("The granting of such a motion is not favored and, absent error of law or
abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's
denial of the motion.").

2.  As to the motion for a
directed verdict: State v. Gaines,
380 S.C. 23, 32, 667 S.E.2d 728, 732-33 (2008) ("When ruling on a motion
for a directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the existence or
nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); Id. at 32, 667 S.E.2d
at 733 ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the state
fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. McCombs,
368 S.C. 489, 493, 629 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2006) (stating if there is any direct
evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the
guilt of the accused, this court must find the case was properly submitted to
the jury).

AFFIRMED.

 HUFF,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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