State v. Sipes

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.

Maxwell E.
Sipes, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

 Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-540

Submitted November 2, 2009 – Filed
November 19, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Tara Dawn Shurling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General William J. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; Solicitor Christina T.
Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Maxwell E. Sipes appeals his conviction
for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, arguing the trial court erred in
denying his motion for a mistrial.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911-12 (1996)
("No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party
accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional
objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a
mistrial."); State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 12, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514
(1999) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion for a mistrial is a matter
within a trial court's sound discretion, and such a decision will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of
law.").         

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 

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