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,
Jamul Ratub El, Appellant.
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-579
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 15, 2008
Chief Appellant Defender, Joseph L. Savitz, 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 Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; Solicitor Kevin S. Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jamul Ratub El appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking, arguing the trial court committed reversible error 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, 912 (1996) (“No issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the [court’s] ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial.”); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 850 (Ct. App. 1999) (“[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.”) (emphasis in original); State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 89-90, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (holding unless the accused is prejudiced, a curative instruction to disregard objectionable evidence is usually deemed to cure the error and admission of inadmissible testimony can be harmless error where the trial court properly admonished the jury to disregard the testimony); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 444, 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) (recognizing a mistrial should only be granted in cases of manifest necessity and with the greatest caution for very plain and obvious reasons and should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received).
SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.