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

The State, Respondent,

v.

Gerald Brown, Appellant.

Appeal from Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-262
Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2, 2012 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Gerald Brown appeals his sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for his convictions of armed robbery, first-degree burglary, and three counts of kidnapping.  Brown argues the trial court's use of his prior juvenile convictions to enhance his sentence under section 17-25-45 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Porter, 389 S.C. 27, 38, 698 S.E.2d 237, 243 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding issues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on appeal); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appeal.").[2]

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

[2] Even if we were to find the issue preserved, we would affirm.  See State v. Standard, 351 S.C. 199, 206, 569 S.E.2d 325, 329 (2002) (holding the enhancement of a sentence under section 17-25-45 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) with a prior juvenile conviction did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment).