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 Appeal From Richland County Deborah Neese, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-547 Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 16, 2010 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.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.