Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-285 - State v. Burdine

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.

Bobby Lee Burdine, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-285 
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 13, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Bobby Lee Burdine appeals his conviction for resisting arrest, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that his underlying arrest was lawful.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-530 (2003) ("Any person who shall . . . be found on any highway or public place . . . in a grossly intoxicated condition . . . shall be deemed guilty of [public disorderly conduct]."); State v. Williams, 280 S.C. 305, 306, 312 S.E.2d 555, 556 (1984) (defining public places as places "so situated that what passes there can be seen by any considerable number of persons, if they happen to look" and where "the public has an interest as affecting the safety, health, morals, and welfare of the community." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Galloway, 305 S.C. 258, 263, 407 S.E.2d 662, 665 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that, "in the light most favorable to the State, the officers' testimony [at trial] established the existence of probable cause to arrest" the defendant, who was charged with resisting arrest).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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