State v. Holmes

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.

John Henry Holmes, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002195

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger E. Henderson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-159
Submitted March 1, 2017 – Filed April 19, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593, 606 S.E.2d 475, 477-78 (2004)
("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with
the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); State v. Butler, 407
S.C. 376, 381, 755 S.E.2d 457, 460 (2014) ("On appeal from the denial of a
directed verdict, this [c]ourt views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the State."); Cherry, 361 S.C. at 593-94, 606 S.E.2d at 478
("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence
reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find
the case was properly submitted to the jury."); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-311(A)(3)
(2015) ("A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree if the person enters a
dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime in the dwelling, and
. . . the entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime."); State v. Evans, 376 S.C.
421, 425, 656 S.E.2d 782, 784 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[T]he test of whether a building is
a dwelling house turns on whether the occupant has left with the intention to
return." (quoting State v. Glenn, 297 S.C. 29, 32, 374 S.E.2d 671, 672 (1988)));
State v. Brooks, 277 S.C. 111, 113, 283 S.E.2d 830, 831 (1981) (holding an intent
to commit any crime is sufficient to satisfy the burglary statute); State v. Meggett,
398 S.C. 516, 527, 728 S.E.2d 492, 498 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[W]hether a defendant
possessed the requisite intent at the time the crime was committed is typically a
question for jury determination because, without a statement of intent by the
defendant, proof of intent must be determined by inferences from conduct."); State
v. Haney, 257 S.C. 89, 91-92, 184 S.E.2d 344, 345 (1971) ("When the building
entered is a dwelling house, the weight of authority holds that the unexplained
breaking and entry in the night is itself evidence of intent to commit larceny rather
than some other crime."); State v. Gilliland, 402 S.C. 389, 397, 741 S.E.2d 521,
526 (Ct. App. 2012) ("Although the intent to commit a crime must exist at the time
the accused enters the dwelling, the jury may base its determination of that intent
upon evidence of the accused's actions once inside the dwelling.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., and LEE, A.J., concur.

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