From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Burnside

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 6, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2012-212039 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2012-212039 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-409

11-06-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Andrew Davion Burnside, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, 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 Greenville County

C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict when the [S]tate fails to produce evidence of the offense charged."); id. ("When reviewing a denial of a directed verdict, [an appellate court] views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [S]tate."); id. at 292-93, 625 S.E.2d at 648 ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, [the appellate court] must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Halyard, 274 S.C. 397, 400, 264 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1980) (holding a conviction for possession of illegal drugs requires "proof of actual or constructive possession, coupled with knowledge of the presence of the drugs"); State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 45, 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("Constructive possession occurs when the person charged with possession has dominion and control over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs were found."); State v. Hudson, 277 S.C. 200, 203, 284 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1981) ("Where contraband materials are found on premises under the control of the accused, this fact in and of itself gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury."). AFFIRMED.

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

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Burnside

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Nov 6, 2013
Appellate Case No. 2012-212039 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2013)
Case details for

State v. Burnside

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Andrew Davion Burnside, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 6, 2013

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2012-212039 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2013)