State v. Blakely

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Blakely

DecidedDecember 11, 2008

Docket2008-UP-685

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Blakely (State v. Blakely) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Blakely, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Nathaniel Blakely, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-685
Submitted December 1, 2008 Filed December 11, 2008

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Blakely appeals his conviction of possession of crack cocaine and sentence of five years, suspended upon the service of three years imprisonment and three years probation. Blakely argues the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in his favor. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 544 S.E.2d 30 (2001) (finding a case is properly submitted to the jury over a motion for directed verdict when any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove guilt of the accused exists); State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 635 S.E.2d 18 (2006) (holding constructive possession is shown by proving the defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion or control over the drugs; constructive possession can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence; and when drugs are found in the premises under the defendants control, knowledge and possession may be inferred).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Nathaniel Blakely, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-685
Submitted December 1, 2008 Filed December 11, 2008

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Blakely appeals his conviction of possession of crack cocaine and sentence of five years, suspended upon the service of three years imprisonment and three years probation. Blakely argues the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict in his favor. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 544 S.E.2d 30 (2001) (finding a case is properly submitted to the jury over a motion for directed verdict when any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove guilt of the accused exists); State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 635 S.E.2d 18 (2006) (holding constructive possession is shown by proving the defendant had dominion and control, or the right to exercise dominion or control over the drugs; constructive possession can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence; and when drugs are found in the premises under the defendants control, knowledge and possession may be inferred).

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Blakely, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blakely-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack