State v. Mack

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. John Mack, Appellant. Appellate Case No…

Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Apr 17, 2013

2013-UP-161 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2013)

Opinion

2013-UP-161

04-17-2013

The State, Respondent, v. John Mack, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011-187127

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Heard April 9, 2013

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

John Mack appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary and grand larceny. Mack argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash his first-degree burglary indictment because it was inaccurate and overbroad. He further contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on both the first-degree burglary and grand larceny charges. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's motion to quash: State v. Shoemaker, 276 S.C. 86, 88, 275 S.E.2d 878, 879 (1981) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash because the defendant knew the crime she was being prosecuted for and there was no indication the defendant was unfairly prejudiced); State v. Bultron, 318 S.C. 323, 329-30, 457 S.E.2d 616, 620 (Ct. App. 1995) (affirming the trial court's decision to deny a motion to quash an indictment based on a mere scrivener's error).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Mack's directed verdict motions: State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [c]ourt must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.").

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

AFFIRMED.