In the interest of Lamarcus W.

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Lamarcus W., a minor under the age of seventeen Appeal from Laurens County Billy A. Tunstall, Jr., Family Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-540 Submitted September 2, 2008 – Filed September 17, 2008 AFFIRMED Appellate Defender Aileen P. Claire, of Columbia, for Appellant.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 Department’s 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.