State v. Culberson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Culberson

DecidedDecember 2, 2015

Docket2015-UP-546

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Culberson (State v. Culberson) 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. Culberson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

Richard Todd Culberson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001390

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-546 Submitted September 1, 2015 – Filed December 2, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tiffany Lorraine Butler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Staff Attorney Susannah Rawl Cole, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moore, 374 S.C. 468, 473, 649 S.E.2d 84, 86 (Ct. App. 2007) ("In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review errors of law only. Thus, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." (citations omitted)); id. at 475, 649 S.E.2d at 87 ("On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict in a criminal case, an appellate court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. Nesbitt, 346 S.C. 226, 231, 550 S.E.2d 864, 866 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Attempt crimes are generally ones of specific intent . . . ."); State v. Tuckness, 257 S.C. 295, 299, 185 S.E.2d 607, 608 (1971) ("[Intent] can be proved only by expressions or conduct, considered in the light of the given circumstances. Intent . . . must ordinarily be proven by circumstantial evidence, that is, by facts and circumstances from which intent may be inferred." (citation omitted)); id. ("The question of the intent with which an act is done is one of fact and is ordinarily for jury determination except in extreme cases where there is no evidence thereon." (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS 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.

Richard Todd Culberson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001390

Appeal From Spartanburg County Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-546 Submitted September 1, 2015 – Filed December 2, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tiffany Lorraine Butler, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Staff Attorney Susannah Rawl Cole, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Moore, 374 S.C. 468, 473, 649 S.E.2d 84, 86 (Ct. App. 2007) ("In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review errors of law only. Thus, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." (citations omitted)); id. at 475, 649 S.E.2d at 87 ("On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict in a criminal case, an appellate court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State."); State v. Nesbitt, 346 S.C. 226, 231, 550 S.E.2d 864, 866 (Ct. App. 2001) ("Attempt crimes are generally ones of specific intent . . . ."); State v. Tuckness, 257 S.C. 295, 299, 185 S.E.2d 607, 608 (1971) ("[Intent] can be proved only by expressions or conduct, considered in the light of the given circumstances. Intent . . . must ordinarily be proven by circumstantial evidence, that is, by facts and circumstances from which intent may be inferred." (citation omitted)); id. ("The question of the intent with which an act is done is one of fact and is ordinarily for jury determination except in extreme cases where there is no evidence thereon." (emphasis added)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS 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. Culberson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-culberson-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack