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.

Larry Scott, Appellant.

Appeal From Williamsburg County
James E. Lockemy, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-120
Submitted March 2, 2009 � Filed March 5, 2009���

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender 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 Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia; Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:� Larry Scott appeals his convictions and sentences for armed robbery, possession of a weapon during a violent crime, and kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict.� At trial, the State produced the following evidence:� (1) direct evidence showing Mary Ann Wall was the female assailant who committed the robbery along with a male assailant; (2) testimony showing Scott was in a relationship with Wall, lived with her, and was with her "ninety percent of the time;" (3) a watch recovered from Scott and Wall's residence similar to the one worn by the male assailant; and (4) testimony from a visual information specialist highlighting several similarities between the surveillance video which captured a portion of the male assailant's face and a photograph of Scott taken a few days after the robbery.� Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold there was substantial circumstantial evidence from which a jury could logically deduce Scott was the male assailant who committed the robbery.� See State v. Cherry, 361 S.C. 588, 594, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) (stating a trial court considering a motion for a directed verdict is not required to find that the evidence infers guilt to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis, and instead has a duty to submit a case to the jury if there is any substantial circumstantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced).�

AFFIRMED. [1]

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.�

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