State v. Robinson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT
BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE
239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Heyward Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

 Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-031

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
14, 2009 

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M.
Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David
Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Heyward
Robinson appeals his conviction for attempted armed robbery arguing the trial
court erred in refusing to direct a verdict on the armed robbery charge because
the State did not present direct or substantial circumstantial evidence of his
participation in the crime.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v.
Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 270, 531 S.E.2d 512, 514 (2000) (holding in
reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant, the
evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State); State v.
Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) (holding if any
direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tends to
prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate court must find the case was
properly submitted to the jury); State v. Morgan, 282 S.C. 409, 411, 319
S.E.2d 335, 336 (1984) (holding when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict
in a criminal case, the trial court is concerned with the existence or
non-existence of evidence, not its weight). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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