State v. Twitty, Irving

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.

Irving Twitty, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-469

Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October
28, 2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Irving
Twitty appeals his conviction for criminal domestic violence of a high and
aggravated nature.  On appeal, Twitty argues the trial court erred in refusing
to grant a mistrial after the solicitor asked about his prior criminal domestic
violence conviction that the trial court previously found inadmissible.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authority: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App.
2006) ("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." (quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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