Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-595 - The State v. Thonal Edwards

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.

Thonal Edwards, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2009-UP-595
Submitted December 1,2009 – Filed December 15, 2009


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Thonal Edwards appeals his convictions for two counts of armed robbery.  On appeal, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict.  We affirm.

Substantial circumstantial evidence proves Edwards participated in the armed robbery under an accomplice liability theory: Edwards' accomplice stated he robbed the two victims, and Edwards admitted he was present for both robberies and directly participated in the first robbery by approaching victim one and warning him to not move.  Additionally, victim one identified Edwards as one of the people who robbed him and police also discovered a magazine clip in Edwards' possession matching the handgun used by Edwards' accomplice during the robbery.  Accordingly, the trial court correctly denied Edwards' motion for directed verdict.  See State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("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.").  

AFFIRMED.[1]

HUFF, GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 


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