State v. Hoyt

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.

Robert Heyward Hoyt,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-247

Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21,
2010

AFFIRMED

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

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

PER CURIAM: Robert Heyward Hoyt, Jr., appeals his conviction for
boating under the influence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his
motion for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Weston,
367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (stating when ruling on a motion
for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or
nonexistence of evidence, not its weight); Id. (explaining a defendant
is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of
the offense charged); Id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648 (noting when
reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, an appellate court views the
evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State,
and if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence
reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate court must
find the case was properly submitted to the jury). 

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER
and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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