In the interest of Lamarcus W.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

In the interest of Lamarcus W.

DecidedSeptember 17, 2008

Docket2008-UP-540

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the interest of Lamarcus W. (In the interest of Lamarcus W.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the interest of Lamarcus W., (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

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

In the interest of Lamarcus W., a minor
under the age of seventeen

Appeal from Laurens County
Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-540
Submitted September 2, 2008 Filed September 17, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Claire, 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 Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The juvenile appeals his sentence to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate amount of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. He contends the family court judge abused his discretion by deviating from the Departments recommended sentence.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In the Interest of Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (holding the issue of whether a minor was competent to enter a guilty plea was procedurally barred as that issue was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the judge at the dispositional hearing); Rhoad v. State, 372 S.C. 100, 108, 641 S.E.2d 35, 39 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the length of a sentence is not preserved for appellate review in the absence of an objection to the trial judge); In Interest of Arisha K.S., 331 S.C. 288, 296, 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (applying general preservation rules within the criminal context of a juvenile proceeding, but inviting the supreme court to revisit whether such rules should be relaxed because the rights of a minor are at stake).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

In the interest of Lamarcus W., a minor
under the age of seventeen

Appeal from Laurens County
Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-540
Submitted September 2, 2008 Filed September 17, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Aileen P. Claire, 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 Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The juvenile appeals his sentence to the Department of Juvenile Justice for an indeterminate amount of time not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. He contends the family court judge abused his discretion by deviating from the Departments recommended sentence.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: In the Interest of Antonio H., 324 S.C. 120, 122, 477 S.E.2d 713, 714 (1996) (holding the issue of whether a minor was competent to enter a guilty plea was procedurally barred as that issue was not raised at the time of the plea, nor was it raised to the judge at the dispositional hearing); Rhoad v. State, 372 S.C. 100, 108, 641 S.E.2d 35, 39 (Ct. App. 2007) (holding the length of a sentence is not preserved for appellate review in the absence of an objection to the trial judge); In Interest of Arisha K.S., 331 S.C. 288, 296, 501 S.E.2d 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1998) (applying general preservation rules within the criminal context of a juvenile proceeding, but inviting the supreme court to revisit whether such rules should be relaxed because the rights of a minor are at stake).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In the interest of Lamarcus W., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-lamarcus-w-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack