Opinion
NO. COA12-777
01-15-2013
IN THE MATTER OF: J.R.S.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kimberly D. Potter, for the State. Richard Croutharmel for juvenile-appellant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Orange County
No. 08 JB 103
Alamance County
No. 08 JB 148
Appeal by juvenile from adjudication order entered 19 October 2011 by Judge Page Vernon in Orange County District Court and two amended disposition orders entered 27 February 2012 by Judge Bradley R. Allen in Alamance County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 December 2012.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kimberly D. Potter, for the State.
Richard Croutharmel for juvenile-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
Jeremy appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent on two petitions alleging he committed injury to personal property. He also appeals from two amended disposition orders which followed his delinquency adjudication. Jeremy contends the district court erred by: (1) failing to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) before accepting his admission to the charges, (2) ordering him to pay restitution in excess of the amount authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2506, and (3) entering two separate disposition orders, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2408(h). We agree that the trial court erred by failing to follow the requirements of Section 7B-2407(a).
A pseudonym is used to conceal the minor child's identity.
I. Factual & Procedural History
On 5 October 2011, Jeremy was charged by two juvenile petitions with injury to personal property in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-160(b). The petitions alleged that Jeremy had vandalized a school computer and copier, and that he had poured chemicals into a teacher's aquarium, killing the fish and destroying the tank.
An adjudication hearing was held at the 19 October 2011 Juvenile Session of Orange County District Court before the Honorable Page Vernon. At that hearing, Jeremy admitted to the allegations in the petitions. Judge Vernon then conducted the following colloquy with Jeremy:
THE COURT: All right, [Jeremy], I'm going to ask you some questions, I know you've gone
over this with your lawyers. Ah, but I need to satisfy myself that you understand what you're doing. And that you're making this admission - of your own free will. Do you know what I mean by "of your own free will"?
[JEREMY]: Yes. (speaking very, very low)
THE COURT: No one putting pressure on you, no one making you say something that you - that's not true. Okay?
[JEREMY]: Yes. (speaking very, very low)
THE COURT: Um. Have the charges been explained to you by your lawyer?
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am, (speaking very, very low)
THE COURT: And have you had a chance to - ask whatever questions you want to your lawyer about the charges - about any, um - defenses you might have to those charges, and just about the court proceeding?
[JEREMY]: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
. . . .
THE COURT: Do you understand that you do have the right to say you didn't do these things, to deny these things? And if you did that - there would be a - a hearing, a trial. And then the . . . prosecutor would have to prove these charges against you beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand that that's how it works?
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: By making this admission - you're
giving up that right to a hearing.
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: At which they'd have to prove the charges. Okay?
. . . .
THE COURT: Do you understand that you're admitting - to two misdemeanor charges of injury to personal property?
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: Did you, in fact - commit those acts?
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: All right.
. . . .
THE COURT: Has anyone made any promises or threatened you in any way to make this admission?
[JEREMY]: (Indistinct Muttering).
THE COURT: Do you make this admission of your own free will - voluntarily, understanding what you're doing?
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: Do you have any questions about anything I've asked you or anything - having to do with these charges?
[JEREMY]: No, Ma'am.
. . . .
THE COURT: Okay. [Jeremy] . . . I am finding that you understand that you are admitting to these charges and you're doing that of your own free will.
[JEREMY]: Yes, Ma'am.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Vernon adjudicated Jeremy delinquent and transferred disposition to the district court in Alamance County, as Jeremy had moved. The Honorable Bradley R. Allen conducted the disposition hearing on 15 December 2011 in Alamance County District Court. The court ordered that Jeremy be placed on 6 months of probation, participate in anger management counseling, and pay $500 in restitution to both the school and the teacher whose aquarium had been vandalized. On 19 December 2011 Jeremy filed written notice of appeal from the district court's order. The court entered a written order on 5 January 2012 consistent with its oral order on 15 December 2011. Jeremy filed written notice of appeal again on 12 January 2012. On 27 February 2012 Judge Allen amended his disposition order and separated his original disposition into two separate orders for each respective charge of injury to personal property. Jeremy then filed another written notice of appeal from these orders on 1 March 2012.
II. Jurisdiction & Standard of Review
Jeremy gave timely written notice of appeal after entry of the adjudication and disposition orders from which he appeals. Therefore, we have jurisdiction over his appeal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2602 (2011) (stating appeal shall be to this Court if a "proper party" gives written notice of appeal within 10 days from entry of a final juvenile order); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2604 (stating the affected juvenile is a proper party).
"Alleged statutory errors are questions of law." State v. Mackey, 209 N.C. App. 116, 120, 708 S.E.2d 719, 721, disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 193, 707 S.E.2d 246 (2011). A question of law is reviewed de novo. Id. Under de novo review, this Court "considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower" court. State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quotation omitted).
III. Analysis
Jeremy first argues that Judge Vernon erred in accepting his admission to the charges in the petition without first undergoing the full colloquy required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a). We agree.
The State also agrees that the district court erred in this respect, and concedes in its brief that "the adjudication and disposition orders in this case must be reversed."
--------
A district court "may accept an admission from a juvenile only after determining that the admission is a product of informed choice." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(b) (2011). Our Supreme Court has held that "the determination as to whether a juvenile's admission is a product of an informed choice as required by [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 7B-2407(b), at a very minimum, is predicated upon the six mandatory requirements specifically listed in [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 7B-2407(a)." In re T.E.F., 359 N.C. 570, 574, 614 S.E.2d 296, 298 (2005).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) states that the trial court may accept an admission from a juvenile only after first addressing the juvenile personally and:
(1) Informing the juvenile that the juvenile has a right to remain silent and that any statement the juvenile makes may be used against the juvenile;N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) (2011).
(2) Determining that the juvenile understands the nature of the charge;
(3) Informing the juvenile that the juvenile has a right to deny the allegations;
(4) Informing the juvenile that by the juvenile's admissions the juvenile waives the juvenile's right to be confronted by the witnesses against the juvenile;
(5) Determining that the juvenile is
satisfied with the juvenile's representation; and
(6)Informing the juvenile of the most restrictive disposition possible on the charge.
This Court has held that a district court's failure to cover even one of the six enumerated inquiries in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) when accepting a juvenile's admission requires a reversal of the adjudication. In re A.W., 182 N.C. App. 159, 161, 641 S.E.2d 354, 356 (2007). The fact that the juvenile signs a transcript of admission which includes the inquiries omitted during the trial court's colloquy with the juvenile does not cure the error. Id. at 162, 641 S.E.2d at 356. Non-compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) necessitates reversal without further inquiry. T.E.F., 359 N.C. at 575, 614 S.E.2d at 299 (rejecting a "totality of the circumstances" test as may be applied in the context of guilty pleas by adult defendants).
Here, the district court failed to (1) inform Jeremy that he had a right to remain silent; (2) determine if Jeremy was satisfied with his attorney; and (3) to inform Jeremy of the most restrictive disposition on the charge. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a)(1, 5-6) (2011). Based upon these omissions, we must reverse the adjudication and disposition orders in this case, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. See A.W., 182 N.C. App. at 161, 641 S.E.2d at 356.
Accordingly, we do not reach Jeremy's other two arguments related to the entry of disposition on the adjudication. On remand, we trust the district court will comply with any and all statutory mandates, including those contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-2408 & 2506 (2011).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges STROUD and MCCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).