Opinion
2012-UP-278
05-09-2012
The State, Respondent, v. Hazard Cameron, Appellant.
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 Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Submitted April 2, 2012
Appeal From Williamsburg County George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
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 Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM
Hazard Cameron appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to (1) charge the jury the State must prove an "intent to steal" as an element of armed robbery and (2) require the State, as part of its closing argument, to open on the law and inform the jury that armed robbery carries a mandatory minimum sentence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
1. As to whether the trial court's jury charge was in error: State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, [this Court] must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial. A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to require the State to instruct the jury on sentencing: State v. Galbreath, 359 S.C. 398, 406, 597 S.E.2d 845, 849 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In South Carolina[, ] determining guilt or innocence is the duty of the jury, whereas sentencing is the duty of the court.").
AFFIRMED.
WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.