Robinson v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: January 16, 2013
• Docket: 2013-UP-021
• Status: Unpublished

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

James Robinson, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2008-098668

Appeal From Richland County L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-021 Heard December 10, 2012 – Filed January 16, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan B. Hackett, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Corey D., 339 S.C. 107, 117-18, 529 S.E.2d 20, 26 (2000) (approving the consideration of the factors set forth in Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) by the family court in its decision to waive jurisdiction); State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 292, 509 S.E.2d 476, 481 (1998) (reviewing a family court's order waiving jurisdiction under the abuse of discretion standard of review); State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 65, 502 S.E.2d 63, 70-71 (1998) ("It is the responsibility of the family court to include in its waiver of jurisdiction order a sufficient statement of reasons for, and considerations leading to, that decision."); State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 560, 647 S.E.2d 144, 161 (2007) (affirming the family court's waiver order despite its lack of detail because the order sufficiently demonstrated that a full investigation occurred, and the record supported the family court's decision).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.