State v. Mangal

CourtListener 10155603Scctapp04.03.2009

Gesamter Gesetzestext

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.

Farid Ahmad
Mangal, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-113

Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 4,
2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; Solicitor
Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Farid Ahmad Mangal appeals his
convictions and sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a
minor, two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor,
incest, and committing a lewd act on a minor.  Mangal argues the trial court
erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.  We affirm[1] 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 [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. Wilson, 345
S.C. 1, 7, 545 S.E.2d 827, 830 (2001) ("The determination of prejudice
must be based on the entire record and the
result will generally turn on the facts of each case.");  Goode v. St.
Stephens United Methodist Church, 329 S.C. 433, 447, 494 S.E.2d 827, 834
(Ct. App. 1997) (holding the appellate court must affirm the trial court on an
issue when the appellant fails to provide adequate materials for this court to
consider the argument).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 

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

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.