In the Interest of David P

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

In the Interest
of David P., a Juvenile Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court
Judge

 Jack Alan Landis, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-149

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, 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
Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David
P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for resisting arrest and commitment
to the Department of Juvenile Justice, arguing the family court erred in (1)
holding that the stop and frisk of him were proper and (2) rejecting his motion
for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court
erred in holding the stop and frisk of David was proper: State v. Nelson, 336 S.C. 186, 193-95, 519 S.E.2d 786,
789-90 (1999) (holding that "new and distinct crimes" do not qualify
as fruit of the poisonous tree); Linda Mc Co. v. Shore, 390 S.C. 543,
557, 703 S.E.2d 499, 506 (2010) ("A case becomes moot . . . when some event occurs making it
impossible for [the] reviewing Court to grant effectual relief." (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)).

2. As to whether the family court
erred in denying David's motion for a directed verdict for resisting arrest: In
re Richard D., 388 S.C. 95, 98, 693 S.E.2d 447, 449 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding
thatthe appellate court "is
concerned with the existence of evidence" and views the evidence and inferences
in the light most favorable to the State).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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