Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2005-UP-487 - State v. Deveaux

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.

Latoya D. Deveaux,        Appellant.


Appeal From Abbeville County
James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-487
Submitted August 1, 2005 – Filed August 16, 2005


AFFIRMED


Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood,  for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Latoya Deveaux was indicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and committing or attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child under the age of sixteen.  The State dropped the lewd act charged prior to trial.  Deveaux was tried before a judge on the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge.  The trial court found Deveaux knowingly and wilfully encouraged, aided, and influenced Heather Barnes to become incorrigible and ungovernable or habitually disobedient beyond the control of her parents.  In addition, the trial court found Deveaux knowingly and wilfully encouraged, aided, and influenced Barnes to deport herself so as to endanger her morals.  Accordingly, the trial court found Deveaux guilty.  We affirm.

1.       We find no error in the trial court’s refusal to quash the indictment on the basis of selective prosecution. In order for a defendant to establish a claim for selective prosecution the defendant must show: (1) He or she was singled out for prosecution, while others similarly situated were not prosecuted and (2) The government’s selective prosecution was based upon an impermissible ground such as race, religion, or exercise of the defendant’s first amendment right to free speech.  State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Mach., 338 S.C. 176, 200, 525 S.E.2d 872, 885 (2000) (quoting United States v. Catlett, 584 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1978)).  Deveaux failed to present evidence at trial that she was singled out for prosecution. 

2.       We find no error in the trial court’s denial of Deveaux’s request for a directed verdict and for a new trial.  “Where there is any evidence tending to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced, the refusal to direct a verdict or grant a new trial is not error.”  State v. Poindexter, 314 S.C. 490, 493, 431 S.E.2d 254, 255-56 (1993).  Deveaux was eighteen years of age when she became involved with Barnes, who was fourteen.  Deveaux does not dispute she left school during school hours with Barnes.  In addition, the State presented the testimony of Barnes and her parents in which they stated Barnes became disobedient toward her parents as a result of her relationship with Deveaux. 

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.