State v. Garrick

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.

Benjamin
Garrick, Appellant.

Appeal From Dorchester County

Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-423

Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed
September 28, 2010

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, 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 William M. Blitch, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of Orangeburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Benjamin Garrick appeals his convictions
for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to
distribute cocaine within the proximity of a school and concurrent sixteen and
five year sentences, respectively.  Garrick argues the trial 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. White, 371 S.C. 439, 444, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163
(Ct. App. 2006) ("'The granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme
measure which should be taken only where an incident is so grevious that
prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.'") (internal citations
omitted); State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393, 395, 350 S.E.2d 923, 924 (1986)
(holding great care should be exercised when issuing a curative instruction,
and "[t]he jury should be specifically instructed to disregard the
evidence, and not to consider it for any purpose during deliberations").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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