State v. Burnside

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Burnside

DecidedNovember 6, 2013

Docket2013-UP-409

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Burnside (State v. Burnside) 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. Burnside, (S.C. Ct. App. 2013).

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Andrew Davion Burnside, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212039

Appeal From Greenville County C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-409 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 6, 2013

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.1

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, 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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Andrew Davion Burnside, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-212039

Appeal From Greenville County C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-409 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 6, 2013

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.1

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

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Burnside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burnside-scctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack