Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-325 - State v. McNeil

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.

Daniel McNeil, Jr., Appellant.


Appeal From Darlington County
John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-325 
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 23, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, 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 Harold M. Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Daniel McNeil, Jr. appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and respective sentences of fifteen and eight years' incarceration, to be served concurrently.  McNeil argues the trial court erred in admitting testimony about a restraining order his girlfriend obtained against him and in denying his motion for a directed verdict on both charges.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:   

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the restraining order and testimony regarding the events precipitating the restraining order: State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58-59, 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("To preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court. . . . If a party fails to properly object, the party is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal.").

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying McNeil's directed verdict motion: Rule 19(a), SCRCrimP (noting that when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court "shall consider only the existence or non-existence of the evidence and not its weight"); State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593-94, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) ("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."). 

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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