State v. Holman

PER CURIAM:

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Joseph Holman,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Bamberg County

William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-353

Submitted May 12, 2003 – Filed June
3, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W.
McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant
Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R.
Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and
the following authorities: State v. Mitchell, 341 S.C. 406, 409, 535
S.E.2d 126, 127 (2000) (holding the trial court is concerned with the existence
of evidence, not with its weight, in deciding whether to grant a motion for
a directed verdict); State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 46, 515 S.E.2d 525,
531 (1999) (holding an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State in an appeal from a denial of a directed verdict); State
v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) (holding if there
is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence “that reasonably
tends to prove the defendant’s guilt or from which his guilt may be logically
deduced,” the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the
jury); see State v. Prince, 316 S.C. 57, 65, 447 S.E.2d 177, 182
(1993) (holding one witness’ testimony that defendant had solicited him to hire
a hit man was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for a directed verdict
on a conspiracy charge); State v. Scott, 330 S.C. 125, 128-32, 497 S.E.2d
735, 737-39 (Ct. App. 1998) (holding the trial court’s denial of a motion for
a directed verdict was proper because the jury reasonably could have concluded
defendant was guilty of breach of trust with fraudulent intent based on the
evidence presented, which included the testimony of several witnesses); State
v. Creech, 314 S.C. 76, 82-83, 441 S.E.2d 635, 638-39 (Ct. App. 1993) (holding
the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict
on the charge of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature because
the testimony of several police officers was “more than sufficient” to submit
the case to the jury).

AFFIRMED.1

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, JJ., and BEATTY, Acting Judge, concur.

1 Because oral argument
would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case
without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.