THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTAL 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,
Kendrick V. Alston, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
Lee S. Alford, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-146
Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11, 2011
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Kendrick V. Alston appeals his conviction for resisting arrest. On appeal, Alston argues the trial court erred in denying both his motion for a directed verdict and for a new trial because the arresting officer did not have a warrant or probable cause to justify the underlying arrest for driving under suspension. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 19(a), SCRCrimP (requiring a trial court to consider only the existence or nonexistence of evidence when considering a motion for a directed verdict); State v. Johnson, 376 S.C. 8, 11, 654 S.E.2d 835, 836 (2007) ("A trial judge has the discretion to grant or deny a motion for a new trial, and his decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-30 (2003) ("The sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of this State may arrest without warrant any and all persons who, within their view, violate any of the criminal laws of this State if such arrest be made at the time of such violation of law or immediately thereafter."); State v. Martin, 275 S.C. 141, 147-48, 268 S.E.2d 105, 108 (1980) (holding it is error to interpret section 17-13-30 so as to exclude the power of an officer to arrest for a misdemeanor, without a warrant, where the facts and circumstances within his observation give him probable cause to believe that the crime has been freshly committed); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 49, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed by the person being arrested.").
HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.