From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Haworth

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 27, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2012-210208 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2012-210208 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-434

11-27-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Nancy Haworth, Appellant.

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent.


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.


Appeal From Pickens County

Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Because there was both direct and circumstantial evidence in the record tending to prove Nancy Haworth was guilty of aiding and abetting and conspiring to distribute methamphetamine as described in section 44-53-375(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2012), the decision of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 593-94, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 555, 564 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2002) (ruling an appellate court may reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict only "if there is no evidence to support the trial court's ruling"); State v. Massey, 267 S.C. 432, 442, 229 S.E.2d 332, 337 (1976) ("In deciding whether the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of a defendant in a criminal case, [the appellate court] must view the testimony in the light most favorable to the State."). AFFIRMED.

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

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Haworth

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 27, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2012-210208 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2013)
Case details for

State v. Haworth

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Nancy Haworth, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 27, 2013

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2012-210208 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2013)