In the Interest of Joelle T., a minor under the age of seventeen

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

In the Interest
of Joelle T., a minor under the age of seventeen, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

Deborah Neese, Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-547

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 16, 2010 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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, and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Joelle
T. appeals her adjudication of delinquency for disturbing schools, arguing the
family court judge erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. §
16-17-420(1)(a) (2003) ("It shall be unlawful . . . for any person
willfully or unnecessarily . . . to interfere with or to disturb in any way . .
. the students or teachers of any school . . . ."); In the Interest of
Bruce O., 311 S.C. 514, 515, 429 S.E.2d 858, 859 (Ct. App. 1993) (reviewing
the denial of a directed verdict motion for acquittal on a delinquency
adjudication, an appellate court must affirm if any evidence reasonably tends
to prove the guilt of the accused). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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