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,
Robert L. Garrett, Appellant.
Appeal From Sumter County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-466
Submitted September 14, 2004 – Filed September 15, 2004
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cecil Kelley Jackson, of Sumter, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Garrett appeals his convictions for carjacking, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, possession of a weapon, and conspiracy. Specifically, Garrett argues the trial court erred when it refused “to grant a severance or a mistrial when it allowed the use of a confession by a non-testifying co-defendant to implicate appellant.” We affirm pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to Garrett’s contention that the trial court erred in admitting his co-defendant’s statement: see State v. Garrett, 350 S.C. 613, 620-621, 567 S.E.2d 523, 526-527 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding in a prior ruling in the same case, that because the statement was redacted to omit mention of Garrett by name and the judge issued a curative instruction, the statement did not violate the confrontation clause); see also B.C. Huggins v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 252 S.C. 353, 357, 166 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1969) (“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a decision of this court on a former appeal is the law of the case.”); Barth v. Barth, 293 S.C. 305, 308, 360 S.E.2d 309, 310 (1987) (“Ordinarily, the disposition of a case in the Court of Appeals when certiorari is not applied for nor granted becomes the law of the case.”).
ANDERSON, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.