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,
Kevin Thompson, Appellant.
Appeal From Lancaster County
Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-609
Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed November 6, 2008
Appellate Defender Eleanor Cleary, 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 Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Douglas A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Kevin Thompson appeals his conviction for possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Thompson also appeals guilty pleas to five other drug charges he made during his sentencing hearing for his drug convictions. Specifically, Thompson argues the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial. Further, Thompson argues his guilty pleas should be vacated because his trial convictions should be vacated. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence and failing to grant a mistrial: 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) (“Because 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.”).
2. As to Thompson’s guilty pleas: State v. McKinney, 278 S.C. 107, 108, 292 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding absent timely objection at plea proceeding, unknowing and involuntary nature of guilty plea can be attacked only through post-conviction relief); State v. Truesdale, 278 S.C. 368, 370, 296 S.E.2d 528, 529 (1982); (“Pleas of guilty are unconditional, and if an accused attempts to attach any condition or qualification thereto, the trial court should direct a plea of not guilty.”).
ANDERSON, HUFF, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.