THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Solomon F. Herbert        Appellant.

Appeal From Bamberg County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2003-UP-747
Submitted October 15, 2003 – Filed December 17, 2003

AFFIRMED

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

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

PER CURIAM:  Solomon F. Herbert was convicted of second-degree burglary in January 2003.  Herbert appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to give an adequate charge on circumstantial evidence.  The trial court charged State v. Grippon, 327 S.C. 79, 489 S.E.2d 462 (1997). Herbert requested the trial court charge circumstantial evidence pursuant to State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989). 

We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 156, 508 S.E.2d 857, 868 (1998) (“Our supreme court has identified two appropriate ways to charge circumstantial evidence.”); State v. Cherry, 348 S.C. 281, 287, 559 S.E.2d 297, 299 (Ct.App. 2001) (“We cannot fault the trial court for utilizing a charge recently specifically approved by the supreme court.”) 

AFFIRMED.

STILWELL, BEATTY, and CURETON, JJ., concur.