Sisk v. State

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

Steve Alvin
Sisk, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Appeal From Fairfield County

Kenneth G. Goode, Circuit Court Judge

 John C. Hayes, III, Post-Conviction
Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-280

Submitted April 1, 2008 – Filed June 2,
2008   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General S. Prentiss Counts, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his application for
post-conviction relief (PCR).

Because
there is sufficient evidence to support the PCR judge’s finding that petitioner
did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we
grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and proceed with a review of the
direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d
60 (1986).

Petitioner argues the trial judge erred in denying his motion for
a mistrial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (holding movant
must show not only error, but resulting prejudice in order to justify a
mistrial); State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 89, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999)
(“A mistrial should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is
received.”); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 227, 522 S.E.2d 845,
851 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating the granting of the motion for a mistrial is an
extreme measure that should be taken only where an incident is so grievous that
prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way); State v. Jones, 325 S.C. 310, 323, 479 S.E.2d 517, 524 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding a curative
instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error).

AFFIRMED.   

HUFF,
KITTREDGE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

[1]  Because oral argument would not aid the court in
resolving the issues on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument
pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.