Miller motion in South Carolina

2023See Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534 , 765 S.E.2d 572 (2014) (holding inmates sentenced to life without parole as juveniles before Miller were entitled to resentencing because their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment);12 State v. Slocumb, 426 S.C. 297 , 827 S.E.2d 148 (2019) 10 "The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005). 11 The United States Supreme Court held the Miller rule applies to the states retroactively on collateral review.

2023See Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534 , 765 S.E.2d 572 (2014) (holding inmates sentenced to life without parole as juveniles before Miller were entitled to resentencing because their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment);12 State v. Slocumb, 426 S.C. 297 , 827 S.E.2d 148 (2019) 10 "The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005). 11 The United States Supreme Court held the Miller rule applies to the states retroactively on collateral review.

2023See Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 212 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2023See Montgomery, 577 U.S. at 212 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2019See Graham , 560 U.S. at 82 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 ("A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term."); Montgomery , 136 S. Ct. at 736 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2019See Graham , 560 U.S. at 82 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 ("A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term."); Montgomery , 136 S. Ct. at 736 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2023See Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534 , 765 S.E.2d 572 (2014) (holding inmates sentenced to life without parole as juveniles before Miller were entitled to resentencing because their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment);12 State v. Slocumb, 426 S.C. 297 , 827 S.E.2d 148 (2019) 10 "The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005). 11 The United States Supreme Court held the Miller rule applies to the states retroactively on collateral review.

2023See Aiken v. Byars, 410 S.C. 534 , 765 S.E.2d 572 (2014) (holding inmates sentenced to life without parole as juveniles before Miller were entitled to resentencing because their sentences violated the Eighth Amendment);12 State v. Slocumb, 426 S.C. 297 , 827 S.E.2d 148 (2019) 10 "The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005). 11 The United States Supreme Court held the Miller rule applies to the states retroactively on collateral review.

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the trial court."); Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469, 476 , 514 S.E.2d 126, 130 (1999) ("In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."); id. ("When the evidence yields only one inference, a dir

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the trial court."); Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469, 476 , 514 S.E.2d 126, 130 (1999) ("In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."); id. ("When the evidence yields only one inference, a dir

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the trial court."); Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469, 476 , 514 S.E.2d 126, 130 (1999) ("In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."); id. ("When the evidence yields only one inference, a dir

2021Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 18 , 640 S.E.2d 486, 495 (Ct. App. 2006) ("When reviewing a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate court must employ the same standard as the trial court."); Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469, 476 , 514 S.E.2d 126, 130 (1999) ("In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."); id. ("When the evidence yields only one inference, a dir

2019See Graham , 560 U.S. at 82 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 ("A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term."); Montgomery , 136 S. Ct. at 736 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2019See Graham , 560 U.S. at 82 , 130 S.Ct. 2011 ("A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term."); Montgomery , 136 S. Ct. at 736 ("A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them.").

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a mistrial: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("[A] defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be e

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018See State v. Yarborough, 363 S.C. 260, 266 , 609 S.E.2d 592, 595 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The granting of a motion for a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Meggett, 398 S.C. 516, 523 , 728 S.E.2d 492, 496 (Ct. App. 2012) ("An abuse of discretion arises from an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Greer, 391 S.C. 179, 189 , 705 S.E.2d 441, 447 (Ct. App. 2010))); Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964) ("There are no mechanical te

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2018As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion to suppress: State v. Taylor, 360 S.C. 18, 23 , 598 S.E.2d 735, 737 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); State v. Moore, 377 S.C. 299, 306 , 659 S.E.2d 256, 259-60 (Ct. App. 2008) ("In an appeal from a motion to suppress evidence based on Fourth Amendment grounds, our review is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the [trial] court's decision."); State v. Missouri, 361 S.C. 107, 112 , 603 S.E.2d 594, 596 (2004) ("To claim protection under the Fourt

2016As to whether the circuit court erred in granting Miller's motion for summary judgment: Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (stating when reviewing a circuit court's grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard that governs the circuit court); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact"); Wogan, 379 S.C. at 585 , 666 S.E.2d at 903 ("In determining whether triable issues of fact exist[], the evidence and all factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to

2016As to whether the circuit court erred in granting Miller's motion for summary judgment: Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (stating when reviewing a circuit court's grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard that governs the circuit court); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact"); Wogan, 379 S.C. at 585 , 666 S.E.2d at 903 ("In determining whether triable issues of fact exist[], the evidence and all factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a directed verdict because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show Miller was in constructive possession of crack cocaine: State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 46 , 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If there is any direct or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find that the issues were properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Muhammed, 338 S.C. 22, 27 , 524 S.E.2d 637, 639 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Possession requires more than mere presence."); State v.

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a directed verdict because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show Miller was in constructive possession of crack cocaine: State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 46 , 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If there is any direct or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find that the issues were properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Muhammed, 338 S.C. 22, 27 , 524 S.E.2d 637, 639 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Possession requires more than mere presence."); State v.

2016As to whether the circuit court erred in granting Miller's motion for summary judgment: Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (stating when reviewing a circuit court's grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard that governs the circuit court); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact"); Wogan, 379 S.C. at 585 , 666 S.E.2d at 903 ("In determining whether triable issues of fact exist[], the evidence and all factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to

2016As to whether the circuit court erred in granting Miller's motion for summary judgment: Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585 , 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) (stating when reviewing a circuit court's grant of summary judgment, appellate courts apply the same standard that governs the circuit court); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact"); Wogan, 379 S.C. at 585 , 666 S.E.2d at 903 ("In determining whether triable issues of fact exist[], the evidence and all factual inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a directed verdict because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show Miller was in constructive possession of crack cocaine: State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 46 , 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If there is any direct or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find that the issues were properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Muhammed, 338 S.C. 22, 27 , 524 S.E.2d 637, 639 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Possession requires more than mere presence."); State v.

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying Miller's motion for a directed verdict because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show Miller was in constructive possession of crack cocaine: State v. Mollison, 319 S.C. 41, 46 , 459 S.E.2d 88, 91 (Ct. App. 1995) ("If there is any direct or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find that the issues were properly submitted to the jury."); State v. Muhammed, 338 S.C. 22, 27 , 524 S.E.2d 637, 639 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Possession requires more than mere presence."); State v.