State v. Santiago

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.

Robert P.
Santiago, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-229

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 18,
2012   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert P. Santiago appeals his convictions
of possession with intent to distribute (PWID) methamphetamine and PWID
methamphetamine within proximity of a school, arguing the trial court erred in
not instructing the jury that the State had the burden of proof after the State
shifted the burden.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v.
Wiley, 387 S.C. 490, 499, 692 S.E.2d 560, 565 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding
when a defendant objects to improper comments during closing arguments, and the
objection is sustained, the issue is not preserved for review when the
defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the curative instruction, move
to strike the testimony, or move for a mistrial after the objection was
sustained).[2]

AFFIRMED.

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

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

[2] Alternatively,
if the issue were preserved for review, we would affirm.  See State
v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 605-06, 683 S.E.2d 500, 509 (Ct. App. 2009)
(holding an alleged error in the State's closing argument was cured by the
trial court's extensive jury charge on the State's burden).