Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-229 - State v. Santiago

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.

Robert P. Santiago, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-229
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 18, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert P. Santiago appeals his convictions of possession with intent to distribute (PWID) methamphetamine and PWID methamphetamine within proximity of a school, arguing the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the State had the burden of proof after the State shifted the burden.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. Wiley, 387 S.C. 490, 499, 692 S.E.2d 560, 565 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding when a defendant objects to improper comments during closing arguments, and the objection is sustained, the issue is not preserved for review when the defendant did not object to the sufficiency of the curative instruction, move to strike the testimony, or move for a mistrial after the objection was sustained).[2]

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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

[2] Alternatively, if the issue were preserved for review, we would affirm.  See State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 605-06, 683 S.E.2d 500, 509 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding an alleged error in the State's closing argument was cured by the trial court's extensive jury charge on the State's burden).