State v. West

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED
ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Jonathan J. West,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Berkeley County

R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-171

Submitted January 29, 2004 – Filed March 16, 2004

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jonathan West was convicted
of armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent
crime, and pointing a firearm. West appeals, arguing the trial court improperly
denied his motion for directed verdict.  We affirm. 

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 30, 2002, two men robbed the
Applebee’s restaurant in Moncks Corner, South Carolina.  West was immediately
identified as a suspect by the victim and two employees, but investigators were
unable to locate him.  West turned himself in to police three days later.  He
was indicted for armed robbery, possession of a firearm during the commission
of a violent crime, and pointing a firearm.  West was tried by a jury on September
16, 2002, and was convicted on all charges.  

LAW/ANALYSIS

West appeals, arguing the circuit court erred in
denying his motion for directed verdict, because the State failed to present
evidence tending to prove his guilt.  Specifically, he argues the State’s evidence
was insufficient, because it did not place him at the actual scene of the crime. 

In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the
trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not
its weight.  State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 502 S.E.2d 63 (1998); State
v. Williams, 303 S.C. 274, 400 S.E.2d 131 (1991).  In reviewing the trial
court’s motion for directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct or any substantial circumstantial
evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find
that such issues were properly submitted to the jury.  State v. Wiggins,
330 S.C. 538, 500 S.E.2d 489 (1998); State v. Long, 325 S.C. 59, 480
S.E.2d 62 (1997). 

Contrary to West’s contentions, the record reveals
ample evidence to affirm the trial court’s denial of his directed verdict motion. 
The victim of the robbery was a co-worker of West’s, who positively identified
West’s voice.  Moreover, another employee was arriving at work as the robbers
were exiting, and she identified West as one of the individuals.  This employee
observed the suspects run toward a blue vehicle located in an adjacent parking
lot.  Furthermore, another employee, who had previously worked with West, observed
West in a blue car near the restaurant near the time of  the robbery.  Viewing
the light most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence to justify
the denial of West’s motion for directed verdict. 

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, J.J., concur.