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.

Heyward Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County
 Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-031
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 14, 2009 

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, 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 Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Heyward Robinson appeals his conviction for attempted armed robbery arguing the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict on the armed robbery charge because the State did not present direct or substantial circumstantial evidence of his participation in the crime.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Fennell, 340 S.C. 266, 270, 531 S.E.2d 512, 514 (2000) (holding in reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict by the defendant, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State); State v. Pinckney, 339 S.C. 346, 349, 529 S.E.2d 526, 527 (2000) (holding if any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, the appellate court must find the case was properly submitted to the jury); State v. Morgan, 282 S.C. 409, 411, 319 S.E.2d 335, 336 (1984) (holding when ruling on a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case, the trial court is concerned with the existence or non-existence of evidence, not its weight). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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