SCDSS v. Brown

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: July 30, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-303
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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.

Dexter Bernard Brown, II, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-202947

Appeal From Barnwell County Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-303 Submitted July 1, 2014 – Filed July 30, 2014

AFFIRMED

Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dexter Bernard Brown, II, appeals his convictions for two counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for directed verdict and (2) charging the jury on "inferred malice" from the use of a deadly weapon. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying counsel's motion for directed verdict: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-1-60 (Supp. 2013) (showing attempted murder is listed as a "violent crime" per statute); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-490(A) (2003) ("If a person is in possession of a firearm . . . during the commission of a violent crime and is convicted of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime as defined in [s]ection 16-1-60, he must be imprisoned five years . . . ."); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight."); 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, [an appellate court] must find the case was properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Dennis, 402 S.C. 627, 638, 742 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App. 2013) (noting the jury may infer an intent to kill from the use of a dangerous or deadly weapon in a manner reasonably calculated to cause death or great bodily harm).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in charging that malice may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court.] Issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal."). AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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