State v. Moore

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 22, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-025
• Status: Unpublished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.

Toby Eugene Moore, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-211107

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-025 Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed January 22, 2014

AFFIRMED

John Terrence Mobley, of The Mobley Law Firm, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, 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, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) ("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."); id. at 292, 625 S.E.2d at 648 ("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."); 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

FEW, C.J., and PIEPER and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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