Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-326 - State v. Miller

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.

Phillip Miles Miller, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-326
Submitted June 1, 2009 – Filed June 15, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, 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 Parsons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Phillip Miles Miller was found guilty of second-degree burglary and petit larceny and sentenced to life without parole and ten years respectively.  He appeals, arguing the trial judge erred in denying his motions for a new trial and for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b) and the following authority:

1.  As to the motion for new trial:  State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 157-58, 508 S.E.2d 857, 869 (1998) ("To prevail on a motion for a new trial based on after discovered evidence, a defendant must show (1) the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) the evidence has been discovered since the trial; (3) the evidence could not have been discovered prior to trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) the evidence is material; and (5) the evidence is not merely cumulative or impeaching.");  Id. ("The granting of such a motion is not favored and, absent error of law or abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not disturb the trial judge's denial of the motion.").

2.  As to the motion for a directed verdict: State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 32, 667 S.E.2d 728, 732-33 (2008) ("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); Id. at 32, 667 S.E.2d at 733 ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the state fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. McCombs, 368 S.C. 489, 493, 629 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2006) (stating if there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, this court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury).

AFFIRMED.

 HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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