Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-540 - 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Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-540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.