The South Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Travis John Alston for resisting arrest. This ruling, issued on November 12, 2026, confirms the trial court's decision to deny Alston's motion for a directed verdict, which argued that the state did not provide sufficient evidence for his arrest to be considered lawful. The case highlights important legal standards regarding the nature of resisting arrest and the underlying requirements for such charges.

The court's decision affects Alston, who was sentenced to one year in prison, and sets a precedent for future cases involving similar charges. The ruling clarifies that the legality of an arrest is not a prerequisite for a conviction of resisting arrest under South Carolina law.

Background

Travis John Alston was convicted of resisting arrest, a charge stemming from an incident in which law enforcement attempted to detain him. The case was heard in Richland County, where the trial court found sufficient evidence to support the charges against him. Alston appealed the conviction, arguing that the state failed to prove that his arrest was lawful, which he believed was necessary for a conviction of resisting arrest.

The appeal was submitted to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, where Alston's defense was represented by Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe. The state was represented by Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Brian Hollis Gibbs. The court reviewed the case based on the evidence presented during the trial and the legal arguments made by both sides.

The Ruling

The court ruled to affirm Alston's conviction, stating that the trial court properly denied his motion for a directed verdict. The judges noted that when considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, there was enough evidence to support all necessary elements of the crime of resisting arrest as defined under South Carolina law.

The court stated, "We hold the trial court properly denied Alston's directed verdict motion because, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the State presented evidence of all the necessary elements of section 16-9-320(A) of the South Carolina Code (2015)."

The court further clarified that the legality of the underlying arrest was not a requirement for a conviction of resisting arrest. They pointed out that the South Carolina General Assembly had amended the relevant statute in 1990, removing the requirement that an arrest must be lawful for a person to be charged with resisting that arrest. This change was significant in affirming the trial court's decision.

The court concluded, "We find that the General Assembly removed any requirement of a lawful arrest when it amended section 16-9-320 of the South Carolina Code (2015) in 1990."

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases concerning resisting arrest in South Carolina. The court's decision clarifies that individuals can be convicted of resisting arrest even if the arrest itself is later deemed unlawful. This sets a clear legal standard that could affect how similar cases are prosecuted in the future.

Law enforcement agencies and legal practitioners will need to consider this ruling when handling cases of resisting arrest. The decision emphasizes the focus on the actions of the individual resisting arrest, rather than the legality of the arrest itself. This could lead to more convictions in cases where individuals resist law enforcement, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the initial arrest.

What's Next

As of now, there is no indication that Alston will appeal the ruling further. The court's decision is final, and the case does not appear to have any related pending cases. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps for Alston.