Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-247 - State v. Hoyt

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.

Robert Heyward Hoyt, Jr., Appellant.


Appeal From Pickens County
 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-247
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 21, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Heyward Hoyt, Jr., appeals his conviction for boating under the influence, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (stating when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight); Id. (explaining a defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged); Id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648 (noting when reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State, and 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.

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


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