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.

Jerome Curtis Buckson, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County
�J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-282
Submitted May 3, 2010 � Filed May 20, 2010���

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM:� Jerome Curtis Buckson appeals his conviction for first-degree burglary, arguing the trial court:� (1) erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, and (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial when hearsay previously ruled inadmissible was admitted into evidence.� We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict: State v. Crawford, 362 S.C. 627, 633, 608 S.E.2d 886, 889 (Ct. App. 2005) ("On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict in a criminal case, an appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.� When ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight.� If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, this [c]ourt must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.") (internal citations omitted).

2. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial when hearsay previously ruled inadmissible was admitted into evidence: 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.") (quotations and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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