Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-UP-271 - Hunt v. State

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

William Hunt, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From McCormick County
 William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-271
Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed May 19, 2008   


AFFIRMED


Tara Dawn Shurling, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Daniel E. Grigg, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986).[1]

Petitioner argues the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a continuance and denying his motion for a directed verdict on the charge of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:

Issue 1: State v. Irick, 344 S.C. 460, 464, 545 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001) (holding an abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law); State v. Wyatt, 317 S.C. 370, 373, 453 S.E.2d 890, 891 (1995) (error without prejudice does not warrant reversal); State v. Tanner, 299 S.C. 459, 462, 385 S.E.2d 832, 834 (1989) (holding the denial of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859, (1957) (“[R]eversals of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens’ teeth.”).

 Issue 2: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Supp. 2007) (categorizing trafficking of marijuana as a violent crime); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-490(A) (Supp. 2007) (“If a person is in possession of a firearm or visibly displays what appears to be a firearm . . . and is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60, he must be imprisoned five years, in addition to the punishment provided for the principal crime.”); State v. Parris, 363 S.C. 477, 481, 611 S.E.2d 501, 502-03 (2005) (holding in reviewing a directed verdict motion, the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence, not its weight);  State v. Zeigler, 364 S.C. 94, 102, 610 S.E.2d 859, 863 (Ct. App. 2005) (“If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.”); State v. Brown, 360 S.C. 581, 586, 602 S.E.2d 392, 395 (2004) (holding a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence on a material element of the offense charged, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State).    

AFFIRMED.  

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


[1]  In his petition for a writ of certiorari, Petitioner also raises three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.  We deny the petition for certiorari on this issue.

[2]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.