DocketNumber： 2005-UP-560
Filed Date： 10/24/2005
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/11/2024
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
David Epps, Appellant.
Appeal From Williamsburg County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005 UP 560
Submitted October 3, 2005 Filed October 24, 2005
AFFIRMED
Tara S. Taggart, Assistant Appellate Defender, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: David Epps was convicted of one count of committing a lewd act upon a minor and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. This appeal followed.
We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities: Issue I: State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005) (insufficiencies in an indictment are not jurisdictional); State v. Owens, 293 S.C. 161, 359 S.E.2d 275 (1987) (An indictment is sufficient if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon.); Issue II: State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) (In reviewing the denial of a directed verdict motion, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State to determine if any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence exists that reasonably tends to prove the defendants guilt or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.).
AFFIRMED.
HEARN, C.J. and STILWELL and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
[1] Because oral argument would not aid the court in resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.