THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Clarence Glover, Appellant.

Appeal From Hampton County
 John  L.  Breeden, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-671
Submitted December 1, 2008 – Filed December 9, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor I. McDuffie  Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Clarence Glover appeals his conviction of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine, arguing the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict.  Specifically, Glover argues the State did not present any evidence tending to prove he actually or constructively possessed the cocaine found by police.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, evidence exists which reasonably tends to prove Glover’s guilt.  Two officers testified Glover was present when the drugs were discovered.  Furthermore, there were eleven cell phones discovered, indicative of a drug operation, and Glover was found with $6,000 on his person.  Thus, sufficient evidence exists to suggest the drugs were under Glover’s control and knowledge.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to direct a verdict and properly submitted this case to the jury.  See State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001) (“If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove guilt of the accused, we must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.”); State v. Heath, 370 S.C. 326, 329, 635 S.E.2d 18, 19 (2006) (holding constructive possession can be proven through direct or circumstantial evidence).

AFFIRMED.[1]

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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