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,
Daniel C. Woods, Appellant.
Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-328
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 24, 2010
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 Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Daniel C. Woods appeals his convictions for grand larceny and second-degree burglary. Woods argues the trial court erred by (1) giving the "hand of one is the hand of all" jury instruction in response to the jury's question when the trial court had previously found the jury charge inapplicable, and (2) allowing an amended indictment for grand larceny. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred by giving the "hand of one is the hand of all" jury instruction: State v. Rye, 375 S.C. 119, 123, 651 S.E.2d 321, 323 (2007) ("A trial court's decision regarding jury charges will not be reversed where the charges, as a whole, properly charged the law to be applied."); State v. Lee, 298 S.C. 362, 364, 380 S.E.2d 834, 836 (1989) ("The law to be charged to the jury is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Burton¸ 302 S.C. 494, 498, 397 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) ("The charge is sufficient if, when considered as a whole, it covers the law applicable to the case.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the amended indictment for grand larceny: Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 497 (Ct. App. 2006) ("An issue raised on appeal but not argued in the brief is deemed abandoned and will not be considered by the appellate court.") (quotation marks and citation omitted).
HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.