State v. Chestnut

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 1, 2016
• Docket: 2016-UP-227
• Status: Unpublished

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.

Armando K. Chestnut, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002123

Appeal From Horry County Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-227 Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) ("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [trial court's] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial."); State v. Greene, 330 S.C. 551, 561, 499 S.E.2d 817, 822 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A contemporaneous objection to the sufficiency of a curative charge must be made to preserve the issue for appellate review."); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) ("[I]f the objecting party accepts the ruling of the trial [court] and does not contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of a curative instruction or move for mistrial, the error is deemed cured, and the issue is not preserved for appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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