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,
Jerry Louis McGriff, Appellant.
Appeal From Lancaster County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-538
Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed December 16, 2010
Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jerry Louis McGriff was convicted of murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a pistol. The trial court sentenced McGriff to forty years' imprisonment for murder and concurrent sentences of one year for unlawful carrying of a pistol and five years for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal, McGriff argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the "hand of one is the hand of all." We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Ward, 374 S.C. 606, 614, 649 S.E.2d 145, 149 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding the "hand of one is the hand of all" charge proper when evidence supports the theory that the defendants joined together to accomplish an illegal purpose); State v. Curry, 370 S.C. 674, 682, 636 S.E.2d 649, 653 (Ct. App. 2006) ("A charge is sufficient if, when considered as a whole, it covers the law applicable to the case."); State v. Condrey, 349 S.C. 184, 194, 562 S.E.2d 320, 324 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Under the 'hand of one is the hand of all' theory, one who joins with another to accomplish an illegal purpose is liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of the common design and purpose."); Id. at 194, 562 S.E.2d at 325 (quotation marks omitted) ("Under an accomplice liability theory, a person must personally commit the crime or be present at the scene of the crime and intentionally, or through a common design, aid, abet, or assist in the commission of that crime through some overt act."); Id.(holding a conspiracy agreement "may be shown by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the parties.").
THOMAS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.