Lynn v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • 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
    Tony Lynn, Petitioner,
    v.
    State of South Carolina, Respondent.
    Appellate Case No. 2012-212649
    Appeal From Lancaster County
    Alison Renee Lee, Post-Conviction Relief Judge
    Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-451
    Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014
    AFFIRMED
    Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
    Columbia, for Petitioner.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General Suzanne Hollifield White, both of
    Columbia, for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
    application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence
    to support the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and
    intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari and proceed with
    a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v. State, 
    288 S.C. 290
    , 
    342 S.E.2d 60
     (1986). We otherwise deny the petition for writ of certiorari.
    Petitioner appeals his convictions of first-degree burglary, assault and battery of a
    high and aggravated nature, possession of a weapon during the commission of a
    violent crime, kidnapping, and criminal domestic violence of a high and
    aggravated nature, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to hear
    testimony that he faced a rape charge in Georgia. We affirm pursuant to Rule
    220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wilson, 
    389 S.C. 579
    , 583,
    
    698 S.E.2d 862
    , 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Appellate courts have recognized that an
    issue will not be preserved for review where the trial court sustains a party's
    objection to improper testimony and the party does not subsequently move to strike
    the testimony or for a mistrial."); 
    id.
     (explaining where a party's objection is
    sustained, "the law assumes a curative instruction will remedy [the] error, [and]
    failure to accept such a charge when offered . . . renders the issue waived and
    unpreserved for appellate review"); see also State v. Bantan, 
    387 S.C. 412
    , 418,
    
    692 S.E.2d 201
    , 204 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding the defendant waived any objection
    to improper testimony when the trial court denied his motion for a mistrial but
    sustained his objection to improper testimony and he refused the trial court's offer
    to give a curative instruction).
    AFFIRMED.1
    FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014-UP-451

Filed Date: 12/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024