State v. Chestnut

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.

Armando K. Chestnut, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002123

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-227
Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed 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 [trial
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. Greene, 330
S.C. 551, 561, 499 S.E.2d 817, 822 (Ct. App. 1997) ("A contemporaneous
objection to the sufficiency of a curative charge must be made to preserve the issue
for appellate review."); State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 263, 468 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct.
App. 1996) ("[I]f the objecting party accepts the ruling of the trial [court] and does
not contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of a curative instruction or move
for mistrial, the error is deemed cured, and the issue is not preserved for appeal.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

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