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. Antonio Kenyardo Posey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000500

Appeal From Saluda County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-363 Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 13, 2019

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Harry, 321 S.C. 273, 280, 468 S.E.2d 76, 80-81 (Ct. App. 1996) ("If the judge [provides a curative instruction], and the initial objecting party is not satisfied with the instruction, a further objection and a request for further instruction should be made at that time."); State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (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.").

AFFIRMED.1 HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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