State v. Dantzler

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.

Eric Dantzler, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-343

Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 29,
2011   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney
General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory
Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM: Eric Dantzler appeals his conviction for trafficking in cocaine in excess of ten
grams but less than twenty-eight grams.  On appeal, Dantzler contends the trial
court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State
failed to prove Dantzler exercised dominion and control over the area where the
drugs were found.  We disagree.

"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. Weston, 367
S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006).  "A defendant is entitled to a
directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense
charged."  Id.  "When reviewing a denial of a directed
verdict, [an appellate court] views the evidence and all reasonable inferences
in the light most favorable to the [S]tate."  Id.  "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."  Id. at 292-93, 625
S.E.2d at 648.  "Before a person may be convicted of the offense of
trafficking, the State must prove the person knowingly possessed ten or more
grams of cocaine.  A person's mere presence, where the drugs are present, would
not be sufficient to convict, without more."  State v. Scott, 303
S.C. 360, 363, 400 S.E. 2d 784, 786 (Ct. App. 1991) (internal citation and
quotation marks omitted). 

The State
produced evidence of Dantzler's dominion and control over the vehicle and glove
box where the drugs were found: Dantzler was seated in the front passenger seat
at the time of the traffic stop, approximately one foot from the glove box
containing the cocaine. He was unusually nervous and agitated while the police
considered towing and taking inventory of the vehicle, he made repeated attempts
to control the disposition of the vehicle, and he fled immediately upon seeing
the glove box opened.  Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State, the evidence supported submitting the case to the jury.

AFFIRMED.[1]

SHORT, KONDUROS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this
case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 214, SCACR.