In the Interest of Carl S. G.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals In the Interest of Carl S. G., Jr., A Juvenile under the Age of Seventeen, Appellant. Appeal From Richland County Leslie K. Riddle, Family Court Judge H. Bruce Williams, Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-597 Submitted August 20, 2003 – Filed October 20, 2003 AFFIRMED Jennifer N. Williams, for Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Carl S. G., Jr. was charged with two counts of hit and run, driving under the influence, and five counts of assault with intent to kill. He pled guilty to one count of hit and run, driving under the influence, and three counts of assault with intent to kill. The judge ordered him to undergo an evaluation. After undergoing the evaluation, another family court judge ordered him to be committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for a term not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. Carl S. G., Jr. appeals, arguing the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea to the three counts of assault with intent to kill because the petition failed to inform the juvenile of the elements of the offense and the case should be remanded to the family court judge who presided over the adjudicatory hearing for disposition in accordance with Rule 37, SCRFC. We affirm [1] pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 14-8-250 (Supp. 2002), Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: In re Jason T., 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 (Ct. App. 2000) (finding the family court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a juvenile delinquent if the petition sufficiently states the offense in order for the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer). II. Rule 37, SCRFC: In re Arisha K. S., 331 S.C. 288, 501 S.E.2d 128 (Ct. App. 1998) (ruling to be preserved for appellate review, an issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by the family court judge). AFFIRMED. HEARN, C.J., ANDERSON and CURETON, JJ., concur. [1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.