State v. Molina

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

David Andres Ortiz Molina, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County
 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-073
Submitted February 2, 2009 Filed February 10, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  David Andres Ortiz Molina appeals his conviction of assault and battery with the intent to kill and twenty-year sentence.  Molina argues he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury because the jury was exposed to extraneous information.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authority:  State v. Kelly, 331 S.C. 132, 142, 502 S.E.2d 99, 104 (1998) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law occurs.").

AFFIRMED.[1]

SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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