In the Interest of Johnny A.

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
In the Interest of Johnny A., A Juvenile under the Age of
Seventeen, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001453
Appeal From Richland County
Michelle M. Hurley, Family Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-219
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, of
Columbia, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: In an appeal from an adjudication of delinquency in family
court, Johnny A. argues the family court erred in denying his motion for a jury
trial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
In re Stephen W., 409 S.C. 73, 76, 761 S.E.2d 231, 232 (2014) (holding juveniles
are not constitutionally entitled to a jury trial in adjudication proceedings under the
United States Constitution (citing McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 530-57
(1971))); id. at 79, 761 S.E.2d at 234 ("[The] important distinctions between the
family court juvenile adjudication process and the traditional criminal justice
process demonstrate that the juvenile adjudication process in family court is not of
a like nature or similar to the manner in which juveniles were criminally charged at
the time the Constitution was enacted. As a result, the South Carolina Constitution
does not entitle juveniles to a jury trial in family court adjudication proceedings.");
In re Kevin R., 409 S.C. 297, 305-06, 762 S.E.2d 387, 391 (2014) (reaffirming the
analysis in Stephen W. and noting there are no collateral consequences to a juvenile
adjudication because an adjudication is not the equivalent of a conviction); id. at
305, 762 S.E.2d at 391 ("[A]ny assertion that juveniles should be entitled to a jury
trial because they are subject to registering as a sex offender if they are adjudicated
delinquent for certain sex offenses is without merit as our appellate courts have
held that registering as a sex offender is a civil, non-punitive consequence.").
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.