Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-337 - State v. Inman

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.

James Matthew Inman, Appellant.


Appeal From York County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-337
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 29, 2010   


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 Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  James Matthew Inman was indicted and found guilty for escape.  Inman appeals his conviction, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict.  Because Inman's indictment alleged both statutory and common law escape, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  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, S.E.2d at 733 ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the [S]tate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); State v. Walker, 311 S.C. 8, 10, 426 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Ct. App. 1992) (explaining when reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, this court "need not reach the question of whether the State proved the statutory offense" when the indictment charges both common law and statutory escape).

AFFIRMED.

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


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