Full Opinion

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 The State, Respondent, v. Jeffery Bruce Wise, Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2024-000265 Appeal From Lexington County Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-464 Submitted October 22, 2026 – Filed November 4, 2026 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Brian Hollis Gibbs, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Jeffery Bruce Wise, Jr. appeals his conviction for first-degree assault and battery and sentence of ten years' incarceration suspended upon eighty-nine days of service and four years' probation which stemmed from an incident in which Wise punched Lea Ann Chandler's (Victim's) mouth. He argues the trial court erred when it (1) denied him immunity from prosecution under the Protected Persons and Property Act1 (the Act) because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence all the elements of self-defense and (2) denied his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to produce any evidence that Victim suffered great bodily injury. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR. 1. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wise immunity from prosecution because Wise's testimony that he placed his hand on Victim's arm when she attempted to drive away supports the trial court's finding that Wise had some fault in bringing on the difficulty. See State v. Marshall, 428 S.C. 11, 17-18, 832 S.E.2d 618, 621 (Ct. App. 2019) ("Appellate courts review an immunity determination for abuse of discretion."); id. at 18, 832 S.E.2d at 621-22 ("A [trial] court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 371 n.4, 752 S.E.2d 263, 266 n.4 (2013) (providing "[t]here are four elements required by law to establish a case of self-defense": (1) "the defendant must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty"; (2) "the defendant must have actually believed he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or he actually was in such imminent danger"; (3) if element two is based on belief, "a reasonably prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief"; and (4) "the defendant had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as he did in this particular instance"(quoting State v. Davis, 282 S.C. 45, 46, 317 S.E.2d 452, 453 (1984))); State v. Oates, 421 S.C. 1, 13, 803 S.E.2d 911, 918 (Ct. App. 2017) ("'[T]he General Assembly did not intend' to require the [trial] court 'to accept the accused's version of the underlying facts' in determining a motion for immunity under the Act." (quoting Curry, 406 S.C. at 371, 752 S.E.2d at 266)); State v. McCarty, 437 S.C. 355, 373, 878 S.E.2d 902, 912 (2022) ("[T]he role of the [trial] court in immunity proceedings is to sit as the fact-finder in the first instance and to weigh the evidence . . . ."); Marshall, 428 S.C. at 19, 832 S.E.2d at 622 (determining "the [trial] court did not abuse its discretion in holding [the appellant] was not entitled to immunity because he failed to prove the elements of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence due to inconsistencies in the record"). 2. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold the trial court did not err in denying Wise's motion for a directed verdict because the State 1 S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to -450 (2015). produced evidence that Wise's punch caused Victim to permanently lose her two front teeth, which required her to receive permanent dental implants; thus, the record contained evidence of protracted loss of a bodily member. See State v. Bennett, 415 S.C. 232, 235, 781 S.E.2d 352, 353 (2016) ("On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, [an appellate court] views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State." (quoting State v. Butler, 407 S.C. 376, 381, 755 S.E.2d 457, 460 (2014))); id. (stating an appellate court's review of the denial of a motion for a directed verdict is limited to considering the existence or nonexistence of evidence); State v. Odems, 395 S.C. 582, 586, 720 S.E.2d 48, 50 (2011) (stating a case is properly submitted to the jury when any direct or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-600(C)(1)(b)(i) (2015) (providing that a person commits first-degree assault and battery when they unlawfully injure another through "means likely to produce death or great bodily injury"); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-600(A)(1) (2015) (providing that great bodily injury is defined as "bodily injury which causes a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ"). AFFIRMED.2 THOMAS, KONDUROS, and CURTIS, JJ., concur. 2 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.