State v. Hamilton

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: April 2, 2003
• Docket: 2003-UP-246
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Appellant,

v.

Daniel Paul Hamilton,        Respondent.

---

Appeal From Greenville County
Joseph J. Watson , Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-246
Submitted January 29, 2003 - Filed April 2, 2003 

---

REVERSED

---

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia; Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville; for Appellant.

Michael  Barcroft, of Greenville; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The State appeals the circuit court’s decision to reverse a magistrate’s court conviction for reckless driving.  The State argues that the circuit judge erred in reversing because sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.  We agree and  reverse [1] pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1998) (If there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to establish the guilt of the accused, an appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted to the jury); State v. Huggins, 325 S.C. 103, 110, 481 S.E.2d 114, 118 (1997) (stating that evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State when reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case); State v. Gilliam, 270 S.C. 345, 242 S.E.2d 410 (1978) (holding circuit court erred in reversing criminal conviction in magistrate’s court where there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury); State v. Henderson, 347 S.C. 455, 457, 556 S.E.2d 691, 692 (Ct. App. 2001) (stating that in criminal appeals from magistrate or municipal court, the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review, but instead reviews for preserved error raised to it by appropriate exception); State v. Head, 330 S.C. 79, 87, 498 S.E.2d 389, 393 (Ct. App. 1997) (same); S.C. Code Ann. § 18-3-70 (1986) (setting forth the appeals process for reckless driving); S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2920 (1991) (“Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate either a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.”).

REVERSED.

HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and SHULER, JJ., concur.

---

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