State v. Castro

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.
Nelson H. Castro, Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Horry County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-378
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed June 20, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of
Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Nelson H. Castro appeals his conviction of trafficking
in cocaine in an amount between twenty-eight and one hundred grams,
arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for a mistrial when the
confidential informant improperly testified about prior purchases of
marijuana and cocaine from Castro and (2) penalizing Castro for exercising
his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a
mistrial when the confidential informant improperly testified about prior
purchases of marijuana and cocaine from Castro: State v. Wilson, 389 S.C.
579, 585, 698 S.E.2d 862, 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or
deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the [circuit] court. The
[circuit] court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion amounting to an error of law." (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted)); id. at 585-86, 698 S.E.2d at 865 ("A mistrial should only be
granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error
and prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial. Insubstantial errors that do
not impact the result of the case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is
conclusively proven by competent evidence." (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted)).

2. As to whether the circuit court improperly penalized Castro for
exercising his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury: State v. Johnston, 333
S.C. 459, 462, 510 S.E.2d 423, 425 (1999) (noting that the South Carolina
Supreme Court "has consistently held that a challenge to sentencing must be
raised at trial, or the issue will not be preserved for appellate review"); State
v. Huggins, 336 S.C. 200, 203 n.2, 519 S.E.2d 574, 575 n.2 (1999) (applying
preservation requirements to constitutional arguments).

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

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.