Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-349 - State v. Brock

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.

Burnell Brock, Appellant.


Appeal From Clarendon County
Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-349
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 6, 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, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Burnell Brock appeals his convictions for attempted armed robbery and resisting arrest, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Brock's motion for a directed verdict for attempted armed robbery when he argued a different ground for error on appeal than at trial and agreed the State only had to prove actual possession of the knife: State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442, 455, 503 S.E.2d 214, 221 (Ct. App. 1998) (explaining in reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review); Id. (stating a defendant cannot argue on appeal an issue in support of his directed verdict motion when the issue was not presented to the trial court).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict for resisting arrest while armed with a deadly weapon when the State failed to offer any evidence he used or threatened to use a knife while resisting arrest: Id. (explaining in reviewing a denial of directed verdict, issues not raised to the trial court in support of the directed verdict motion are not preserved for appellate review); Id. (stating a defendant cannot argue on appeal an issue in support of his directed verdict motion when the issue was not presented to the trial court).

3.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict for resisting arrest while armed with a deadly weapon because he was not under arrest when he ran from law enforcement: State v. James, 362 S.C. 557, 561, 608 S.E.2d 455, 457 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In ruling on a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.  The trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); Id. ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); see also State v. Robertson, 191 S.C. 509, 510, 5 S.E.2d 285, 285-86 (1939) (explaining that while a person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest, it is within the "province of the jury to determine whether the officer was warranted under the circumstances in attempting to make the arrest"). 

AFFIRMED. 

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.