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,
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Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-566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
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 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.”).
C.J., and HUFF and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.