Bruce O., In Interest of, 1998
| Decision Date | 24 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 1998,1998 |
| Citation | 429 S.E.2d 858,311 S.C. 514 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Interest of BRUCE O., a minor under the age of seventeen, Appellant. . Heard |
Deputy Chief Atty. Joseph L. Savitz, III, and Asst. Appellate Defender Wanda H Haile, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia, and Solicitor Randolph Murdaugh, III, Hampton, for respondent.
Bruce O. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency on a charge of solicitation to commit a felony. He asserts the court erred in denying his directed verdict motion and denying his motion for a continuance. We affirm.
In reviewing a court's denial of a motion for a directed verdict, this Court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Myers, 301 S.C. 251, 391 S.E.2d 551 (1990). A motion for a directed verdict should be denied when there is any evidence, direct or circumstantial, which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which the guilt of the accused may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 385 S.E.2d 839 (1989). Applying this scope of review to the evidence in the record, we find sufficient evidence to uphold the adjudication.
Appellant asserts error in the trial judge's failure to grant a continuance as defense counsel had recently moved to the area and had not been afforded sufficient consultation with appellant. A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Dingle, 279 S.C. 278, 306 S.E.2d 223 (1983) (). On this record, we find no abuse of discretion. 1
AFFIRMED.
1 Counsel for Bruce O. asserted at oral argument that the trial judge erred in failing to grant a continuance because the State amended the charge of conspiracy to commit a felony to solicitation to commit a felony on the day of the hearing, thus denying him sufficient notice of the charge against him. This argument was neither raised before the trial judge nor addressed in appellant's brief. This court will not grant relief on an alleged error asserted for the first time on appeal. Mann v. Walker, 285 S.C....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cherry, 3406.
... ... Just before midnight on July 31, 1998, Officer Steven Parker of the Rock Hill Police Department stopped a car driven by Cherry's sister ... See, e.g., State v. Horne, 324 S.C. 372, 478 S.E.2d 289 (Ct.App.1996) ; In the Interest of Bruce 0., 311 S.C. 514, 429 S.E.2d 858 (Ct.App.1993). As at the trial level, the appellate ... ...
-
Jones ex rel. Jones v. E'Prise Leas. Company-Southeast
...neither plead master-servant liability, nor argued it in her brief, so we decline to address the issue. In re Bruce O., 311 S.C. 514, 515 n. 1, 429 S.E.2d 858, 859 n. 1 (Ct.App.1993) (explaining an appellant may not use oral argument as a vehicle to argue issues not argued in his 5. We note......
-
SOUTH CAROLINA DSS v. Basnight
...action based on the prior North Carolina proceedings. This issue is not preserved for appellate review. See In the Interest of Bruce O., 311 S.C. 514, 429 S.E.2d 858 (Ct.App.1993) (An appellant may not use oral argument as a vehicle to argue issues not argued in the appellant's brief.). Eve......
-
Greenville Hosp. System v. PROVIDENT LIFE, 2820.
...ended, this issue was not raised in its final briefs and therefore is not preserved for appeal. In Interest of Bruce O., 311 S.C. 514, 515, 429 S.E.2d 858, 859 (Ct.App.1993) (An appellant may not use oral argument as a vehicle to argue issues not argued in the appellant's 2. Health Care Sav......