Happy Friday, defenders! We have a handful of opinions that have come out in the last two months, and they are summarized here for your reading and reference pleasure! It’s an interesting mix of cases this time around – many with good outcomes or at least good rules of law.
State v. Kelliher
No. COA23-691
Cumberland County
7 May 2024
Summary of the Case: This case is the continuing saga of the Kelliher/Connor line of cases dealing with the imposition of Life Without Parole for youth convicted of first-degree murder, and per se LWOP sentences created by concurrent sentences. This case is an appeal of the resentencing hearing after remand from the original opinion.
Issues Affecting Youth: May a trial court resentence on any sentences within a judgement upon remand of only one sentence within a judgment? No, it may not.
“When an appellate court remands a matter to the trial court, the remand may be general or limited; and, in the case of a limited remand, the appellate court may divest the trial court of discretion it would otherwise retain were the remand general. Here, where our Supreme Court clearly conveyed to the trial court its intent to limit the scope of its remand from Defendant’s prior appeal, the trial court was not authorized to conduct a new, discretionary sentencing hearing.”
In re: D.J.Y
No. COA23-1079
Rowan County
7 May 2024
Summary of the Case: A petition was filed against “Dawson” alleging injury to personal property greater than $200. The section of the juvenile petition titled “decision of court counselor regarding the filing of the petition” and as such, the box indicating “approved for filing” and the box for the court counselor’s signature were all left blank. The adjudication and disposition hearings were held approximately three months later. Dawson appealed, arguing that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hold the adjudication or disposition hearings.
Issues Affecting Youth: Is a petition that does not have the court counselor’s signature and decision to approve the filing a valid petition? No, it is not.
“’[I]f the juvenile court counselor determines that a complaint should be filed as a petition,’ then he or she ‘shall include on it . . . the words ‘Approved for Filing’, shall sign it, and shall transmit it to the clerk of superior court.’ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1703(b).” (emphasis in original).
“This Court has held ‘that a petition alleging delinquency that does not include the signature of a juvenile court counselor, or other appropriate representative of the State, and the language ‘Approved for Filing,’ . . . fails to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction in the subject matter.’ In so holding, this Court reasoned that finding a juvenile court counselor’s approval for filing to be a jurisdictional prerequisite would promote the purposes of the juvenile delinquency system . . .” (internal citations omitted.)
In re: D.R.F., JR.
No. COA23-473
Yadkin County
7 May 2024
Summary of the Case: A petition was filed against “Daniel” alleging Communicating a Threat of Mass Destruction on Educational Property. Probable cause was found, and the Court proceeded to adjudicatory and disposition hearings. At the adjudicatory hearing, the State requested the trial court continue disposition for seven days while Daniel was held in secure custody, and the court did so hold Daniel in secure custody for seven days between the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. The only articulated basis for the holding in secure custody was punitive.
Issues Affecting Youth: See the opinion for a discussion of “true threats,” requiring a subjective and objective showing of a true threat. Of note in this opinion, the holding of the youth in secure custody between adjudication and disposition, with no articulated basis for continuing disposition, was found as abuse of discretion by the trial court. Further, despite the issue being moot, such issues can be reviewed on appeal when the issue is “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
“We review the trial court’s ruling continuing the disposition hearing and placing Daniel in temporary secure custody pending disposition for an abuse of discretion. . . . there was no good cause for a continuance under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2406. Moreover, neither the State nor the trial court identified any extraordinary circumstance justifying the continuance. . . . Thus, there was no valid basis demonstrated to continue disposition and place Daniel in secure custody pending disposition. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by continuing disposition and placing Daniel in secure custody pending disposition.” (internal citations omitted)
“We have previously held a similar temporary secure custody order is reviewable on appeal even after its expiration and is properly before us on the grounds that it ‘is capable of repetition, yet evading review.’” (internal citations omitted)
In re: G.H.
No. COA23-939
Mecklenburg County
21 May 2024
Summary of the Case: Petitions were sought against “John” in which the court counselor also sought a secure custody order. The Court denied the request to detain John and ordered that the court counselor develop a safety plan for the child. The court counselor did so but also directed John to attend Bridges Assessment Center. Defense moved to dismiss the petitions based on illegal detention of John at the Bridges Assessment Center. The trial court agreed, and after detailing a list of concerns with the court counselor’s actions, dismissed the petitions. The State appealed the dismissal.
Issues Affecting Youth: May the State take appeal from a dismissal with prejudice by the trial court? No, it may not.
“The State may [only] appeal: ‘(1) [a]n order finding a State statute to be unconstitutional; and [a]ny order which terminates the prosecution of a petition by upholding the defense of double jeopardy, by holding that a cause of action is not stated under a statute, or by granting a motion to suppress.’ N.C.G.S. § 7B-2604(b) (2023).”
We also recommend defenders read the opinion for the findings by the trial court in regard to Bridges Assessment Center and the reasoning for the trial court’s dismissal of the petitions.
In re: K.S.
No. COA24-65
Forsyth County
4 June 2024
Summary of the Case: “Kyle” was ordered to YDC under a Level 3 dispositional order after being found in violation of his terms of probation under a Level 2 dispositional order. Several aspects of the case were appealed, including a challenge to the Level 3 dispositional order and a challenge to anticipatory secure custody, although two of the three issues raised on appeal were not addressed due to what the Appellate Courts deemed was untimely appeal of the issues.
Issues Affecting Youth: The Appellate Court addressed the question of whether “the trial court erred by entering a dispositional order without making any supporting findings of fact, without making a finding that a predisposition report was not needed, and without reviewing the comprehensive clinical assessment before choosing a disposition,” and ultimately upheld the decision of the lower court. While this opinion isn’t necessarily consistent with previous rulings, this is an unpublished opinion and thus not binding or controlling authority, and defenders should be aware of how the Court’s analysis might be replicated in a trial setting.