State v. Campos

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.

Diego Reyes Campos, Appellant.

Appeal from Chester County

 Joseph W. McGowan, III, Family Court
Judge

 James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-566

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
13, 2008  

AFFIRMED

Tara Shurling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and
Assistant Attorney General Julie Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas
A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Diego Reyes Campos was arrested and charged with murdering a twelve-year-old
female.  Campos was fourteen at the time of the incident.  After a hearing, the
family court transferred jurisdiction to the circuit court, allowing Campos to be tried as an adult.  Campos pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, and the circuit
court sentenced Campos to twenty-five years’ of imprisonment.  Campos appeals, arguing the family court erred in transferring jurisdiction to the circuit
court.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Kent v.
United States, 383 U.S. 541, 566-67, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1060 (1966)
(enumerating eight factors the family court must consider before granting a
motion to transfer jurisdiction); State v. Lamb, 374 S.C. 346, 349, 649
S.E.2d 486, 487 (2007) (“In a murder case, the Legislature intended to
give the family court discretion to transfer jurisdiction for any juvenile, regardless
of age.”); State v. Corey D., 339 S.C. 107, 118, 529 S.E.2d 20, 26
(2000) (accepting the Kent factors as set forth by the United States
Supreme Court and stating the family court must consider the Kent factors and emphasize that the serious nature of the offense is a major factor
in the transfer decision); State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 293, 509
S.E.2d 476, 481 (1998) (holding the family court’s order granting a motion to
transfer jurisdiction must include a statement of the reasons for the transfer
and must sufficiently demonstrate that the statutory requirement of full
investigation has been met and that the question has received full and careful
consideration by the family court); State v. Miller, 363 S.C. 635, 641,
611 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct. App. 2005) (“This court will affirm the transfer order
unless the family court has abused its discretion.”). 

AFFIRMED.

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

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