State v. Molina

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

The State, Respondent,

v.

David Andres
Ortiz Molina, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-073

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 10, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
David Andres Ortiz Molina appeals his conviction of assault and battery with
the intent to kill and twenty-year sentence.  Molina argues he was deprived of
his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury because the jury was
exposed to extraneous information.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Kelly, 331 S.C. 132, 142, 502 S.E.2d 99, 104 (1998) ("The
granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound
discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal
unless an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law occurs.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

SHORT,
THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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