State v. Carson

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.

David Cortez Carson, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

E. C. Burnett, III, Special Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-243  

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 25,
2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A.
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: David Cortez Carson appeals his conviction of murder, arguing the
circuit court erred in failing to declare a mistrial when the State introduced
improper character evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691,
693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for
appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the [circuit
court].  Issues not raised and ruled upon in the [circuit] court will not be
considered on appeal."); In re Walter M.,
386 S.C. 387, 392, 688 S.E.2d 133, 136 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Arguments raised
for the first time on appeal are not preserved for our review."); State
v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1996) (stating if
the objecting party accepts the ruling of the circuit court and does not
contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of the curative instruction or move
for a mistrial, any error is deemed cured and the issue is not preserved for
appellate review).[2]

AFFIRMED.

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

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

[2] Even if we were to find the issue preserved, we would
affirm.  See State v. Faulkner, 274 S.C. 619, 621, 266 S.E.2d
420, 421 (1980) (noting that although the State may not attack a criminal
defendant's character unless he or she places it in issue, relevant evidence
properly admissible for other purposes need not be excluded merely because it
incidentally reflects on his or her character).