Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-149 - In the Interest of David P

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

In the Interest of David P., a Juvenile Under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant.


Appeal From Anderson County
 Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge
 Jack Alan Landis, Family Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-149
Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 12, 2011   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, 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 Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for resisting arrest and commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice, arguing the family court erred in (1) holding that the stop and frisk of him were proper and (2) rejecting his motion for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the family court erred in holding the stop and frisk of David was proper: State v. Nelson, 336 S.C. 186, 193-95, 519 S.E.2d 786, 789-90 (1999) (holding that "new and distinct crimes" do not qualify as fruit of the poisonous tree); Linda Mc Co. v. Shore, 390 S.C. 543, 557, 703 S.E.2d 499, 506 (2010) ("A case becomes moot . . . when some event occurs making it impossible for [the] reviewing Court to grant effectual relief." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the family court erred in denying David's motion for a directed verdict for resisting arrest: In re Richard D., 388 S.C. 95, 98, 693 S.E.2d 447, 449 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding thatthe appellate court "is concerned with the existence of evidence" and views the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the State).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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