In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,


Reginald Wheeler,        Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County
Rodney A. Peeples, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-631
Submitted September 9, 2003 – Filed October 22, 2003


Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Spann, 279 S.C. 399, 402, 308 S.E.2d 518, 520 (1983) (holding upon a motion for a directed verdict, the trial judge is concerned with the existence of evidence and not its weight); State v. Thompson, 279 S.C. 405, 408, 308 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1983) (holding the circuit court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State); State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 602, 533 S.E.2d 572, 574 (2000) (“The trial court has a duty to submit the case to the jury where the evidence is circumstantial, if there is substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced.”); State v. Walsh, 300 S.C. 427, 429, 388 S.E.2d 777, 779 (1988) (“[T]he elements which constitute the common law  offense of assault with intent to kill are (1) an unlawful attempt;  (2) to commit a violent injury;  (3) to the person of another;  (4) with malicious intent;  and (5) accompanied by the present ability to complete the act.”), overruled on other grounds by, State v. Easler, 327 S.C. 121, 131, 489 S.E.2d 617, 623 (1997); State v. Campbell, 287 S.C. 377, 379, 339 S.E.2d 109, 109 (1985) (“The implication of malice may arise from the use of a deadly weapon.”).


STILWELL, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.    

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, Rule 215.