Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-113 - State v. Mangal

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.

Farid Ahmad Mangal, Appellant.


Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-113
Submitted March 2, 2009 – Filed March 4, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Farid Ahmad Mangal appeals his convictions and sentences for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, incest, and committing a lewd act on a minor.  Mangal argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.  We affirm[1] 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. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 7, 545 S.E.2d 827, 830 (2001) ("The determination of prejudice must be based on the entire record and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case.");  Goode v. St. Stephens United Methodist Church, 329 S.C. 433, 447, 494 S.E.2d 827, 834 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding the appellate court must affirm the trial court on an issue when the appellant fails to provide adequate materials for this court to consider the argument).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. 


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