State v. Thompson

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Kevin Thompson, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-609

Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed
November 6, 2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Douglas A.
Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kevin Thompson appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine
with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. 
Thompson also appeals guilty pleas to five other drug charges he made during
his sentencing hearing for his drug convictions.  Specifically, Thompson argues
the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and refusing to grant his
motion for a mistrial.  Further, Thompson argues his guilty pleas should be
vacated because his trial convictions should be vacated.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  

1. 
As to whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence and failing to grant
a mistrial:  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 [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. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999)
(“Because a trial court’s curative instruction is considered to cure any error
regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a
curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an
issue for review.”). 

2. 
As to Thompson’s guilty pleas:  State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108,
292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding absent timely objection at plea proceeding,
unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through
post-conviction relief); State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 370, 296
S.E.2d 528, 529 (1982); (“Pleas of guilty are unconditional, and if an
accused attempts to attach any condition or qualification thereto, the trial
court should direct a plea of not guilty.”). 

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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