State v. Twitty, Irving ( 2010 )

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.

Irving Twitty, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-469
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed October 28, 2010   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General A. West Lee, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Irving Twitty appeals his conviction for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.  On appeal, Twitty argues the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the solicitor asked about his prior criminal domestic violence conviction that the trial court previously found inadmissible.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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." (quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

---

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