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.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Ackief Pauling, Appellant.
From Richland County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 2010-UP-379
Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed August 3, 2010
Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best, 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 A. West Lee, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Ackief Pauling appeals his convictions for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, armed robbery, and first-degree burglary. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the use of a Spanish interpreter retained by the solicitor's office: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) (holding an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review).
2. As to whether the solicitor's closing argument infected Pauling's trial with unfairness and denied him his right to due process: Id. (holding an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for appellate review).
3. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay: Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp., 387 S.C. 22, 39, 691 S.E.2d 135, 143-44 (2010) (recognizing that when a trial court sustains an objection, the appellate court has nothing to decide given the objecting party received the relief he sought); see also State v. Thompson, 304 S.C. 85, 87, 403 S.E.2d 139, 140 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding when an objection is sustained and no further relief is sought, no issue is preserved for appeal as appellant received all relief requested from the trial court).
4. As to whether Pauling's indictment for first-degree burglary was insufficient: State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 103, 610 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2005) (holding an objection to the sufficiency of an indictment made after the jury is sworn is untimely); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-90 (2003) ("Every objection to any indictment for any defect apparent on the face thereof shall be taken by demurrer or on motion to quash such indictment before the jury shall be sworn and not afterwards.").
KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.