State v. Cooper

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.

Duval Melvin Cooper, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-162207

Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-465
Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed August 1, 2012

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy
Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Duval Melvin Cooper appeals his convictions of trafficking
heroin and trafficking methamphetamine. He argues the trial court erred in
denying his motion for a directed verdict because insufficient evidence existed to
show constructive possession of the drugs found in a duffle bag in the back of the
van he was driving. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Hernandez, 382 S.C. 620, 624, 677 S.E.2d 603, 605
(2009) ("Knowledge can be proven by the evidence of acts, declarations, or
conduct of the accused from which the inference may be drawn that the accused
knew of the existence of the prohibited substances."); State v. Williams, 346 S.C.
424, 430, 552 S.E.2d 54, 57 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Where contraband materials are
found on premises under the control of the accused, this fact in and of itself gives
rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry
the case to the jury." (citation and quotation marks omitted)); State v. Wise, 272
S.C. 384, 387-88, 252 S.E.2d 294, 296 (1979) (finding evidence the defendant was
the owner and operator of a pickup truck containing marijuana was sufficient to
create a jury question as to whether he was guilty of possession).

AFFIRMED.

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

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