State v. Hewitt

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.

Steven Hewitt, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-117  

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 29, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Steven Hewitt appeals his convictions for first-degree criminal
sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a minor, arguing the circuit court
erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wilson, 389
S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[A]s the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy an
error, failure to accept such a charge when offered, or failure to object to
the sufficiency of that charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for
appellate review."); 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 [circuit 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. Dunbar, 356
S.C. 138, 143, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party may not argue one
ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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