State v. Cameron ( 2012 )

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.

Hazard Cameron, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Williamsburg County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-278
Submitted April 2, 2012 - Filed May 9, 2012

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Hazard Cameron appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to (1) charge the jury the State must prove an "intent to steal" as an element of armed robbery and (2) require the State, as part of its closing argument, to open on the law and inform the jury that armed robbery carries a mandatory minimum sentence. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court's jury charge was in error: State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, [this Court] must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial. A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to require the State to instruct the jury on sentencing: State v. Galbreath, 359 S.C. 398, 406, 597 S.E.2d 845, 849 (Ct. App. 2004) ("In South Carolina[,] determining guilt or innocence is the duty of the jury, whereas sentencing is the duty of the court.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

---

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