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,

v.

LaPatrick Gibson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-295
Submitted May 3, 2010 – Filed May 27, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  LaPatrick Gibson appeals his conviction for escape pursuant to section 24-13-410 of the South Carolina Code Ann. (2007).  A jury found him guilty of escape, and the trial court sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Gibson's motion for a directed verdict:  S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-410(A) (2007) ("It is unlawful for a person, lawfully confined in prison or upon the public works of a county or while in the custody of a superintendent, guard, or officer, to escape, to attempt to escape, or to have in his possession tools or weapons which may be used to facilitate an escape."); Bing v. Harvey, 274 S.C. 216, 218, 262 S.E.2d 42, 43 (1980) (holding escape from lawful pretrial custody constituted the statutory offense of escape); State v. Walker, 311 S.C. 8, 10, 426 S.E.2d 337, 338 (Ct. App. 1992) ("[T]hose who decline to undergo legal confinement when arrested and without force flee from lawful custody before they are confined in jail commit the crime of escape."). 

2. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gibson's request to charge the unlawful confinement language of section 24-13-410:  State v. Patterson, 367 S.C. 219, 235, 625 S.E.2d 239, 247 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the trial court must charge only issues that are supported by evidence). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.