In re E.A.
| Decision Date | 17 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. COA19-277,COA19-277 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: E.A. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Janelle E. Varley, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Amanda S. Hitchcock, for respondent-appellant juvenile.
Respondent-juvenile "Evan"1 appeals from a disposition and commitment order adjudicating him to be a Level 2 delinquent juvenile. Evan argues on appeal that, after being presented with evidence that he was mentally ill, the trial court erred by failing to refer him to the area mental health services director. After careful review, we vacate the disposition and commitment order and remand to the trial court for a referral to the area mental health services director.
The relevant facts are few. Between 14 December 2017 and 5 January 2018, a Wake County juvenile court counselor approved a petition alleging that Evan (1) committed an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill; (2) possessed stolen property; and (3) committed malicious conduct upon a government official by spitting on him. Evan admitted to the charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and malicious conduct, and the State dismissed the charge of possession of stolen property. The Honorable Craig Croom adjudicated Evan as delinquent, entered a Level 2 disposition, and ordered twelve months’ probation. One month later, a juvenile court counselor filed a motion for review, alleging that Evan violated his probation. On 9 October 2018, the motion for review came on for hearing before the Honorable Robert Rader in Wake County District Court. Judge Rader found Evan in willful violation of his probation, revoked his probation, and ordered that Evan be committed to a youth development center with the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice for an indefinite period, to end no later than Evan’s eighteenth birthday.
Preliminarily, we address our jurisdiction to consider the merits of Evan’s appeal. Evan filed written notice of appeal on 10 October 2018. Typed into the trial court’s order at the bottom of the page is the date "10/9/2018." However, the order is additionally—and quite noticeably—stamped with "2018 OCT 12 A 11:07," indicating that the order was filed after Evan filed his notice of appeal on 10 October.
Before a party may file notice of appeal, there must first be an entry of judgment. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2017) (). "When a defendant has not properly given notice of appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal." See State v. Webber , 190 N.C. App. 649, 651, 660 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2008) (quotation marks omitted). Consequently, Evan would need to request—and we would need to issue—a writ of certiorari to have his case reviewed. See N.C.R. App. P. 21(a). No petition for writ of certiorari was ever filed. However, this Court has the discretionary authority, pursuant to Appellate Rule 21, to "treat the purported appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it in our discretion." Luther v. Seawell , 191 N.C. App. 139, 142, 662 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2008).
For reasons more fully explained below, we find the facts of Evan’s case worthy of treating his brief as a petition for writ of certiorari. We also note that the State has not raised this jurisdictional issue in its brief, and we do not contemplate any resulting prejudice to the State. Thus, in our discretion, we invoke this Court’s authority pursuant to our caselaw and Appellate Rule 21, and proceed to the merits of Evan’s appeal.
Evan argues on appeal that the trial court erred by failing to refer him to the area mental health services director, after being presented with evidence that Evan was mentally ill. We agree.2
Prior to disposition in a juvenile delinquency action, "the court may order that the juvenile be examined by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other qualified expert as may be needed for the court to determine the needs of the juvenile." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(a) (2017). When presented with evidence that the juvenile is mentally ill, the trial court is required to take further action:
If the court believes, or if there is evidence presented to the effect that the juvenile is mentally ill or is developmentally disabled, the court shall refer the juvenile to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director for appropriate action. A juvenile shall not be committed directly to a State hospital or mental retardation center; and orders purporting to commit a juvenile directly to a State hospital or mental retardation center except for an examination to determine capacity to proceed shall be void and of no effect. The area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse director shall be responsible for arranging an interdisciplinary evaluation of the juvenile and mobilizing resources to meet the juvenile’s needs. If institutionalization is determined to be the best service for the juvenile, admission shall be with the voluntary consent of the parent, guardian, or custodian. If the parent, guardian, or custodian refuses to consent to a mental hospital or retardation center admission after such institutionalization is recommended by the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse director, the signature and consent of the court may be substituted for that purpose. In all cases in which a regional mental hospital refuses admission to a juvenile referred for admission by the court and an area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse director or discharges a juvenile previously admitted on court referral prior to completion of the juvenile’s treatment, the hospital shall submit to the court a written report setting out the reasons for denial of admission or discharge and setting out the juvenile’s diagnosis, indications of mental illness, indications of need for treatment, and a statement as to the location of any facility known to have a treatment program for the juvenile in question.
Id. § 7B-2502(c). Notwithstanding a party’s failure to object at trial, the trial court’s violation of a statutory mandate is reversible error, reviewed de novo on appeal. In re E.M. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 823 S.E.2d 674, 676, disc. review denied , ––– N.C. ––––, 822 S.E.2d 649 (2019).
"Faced with any amount of evidence that a juvenile is mentally ill, a trial court has a statutory duty to refer the juvenile to the area mental health services director for appropriate action." Id. at ––––, 823 S.E.2d at 677 (). Section 7B-2502(c) "envisions the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mangum
...grant certiorari ex mero motu in order to allow appellate review in circumstances similar to those before us: Matter of E.A. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 833 S.E.2d 630, 631 (2019) (citations omitted) (certiorari properly granted even though "the order [from which the appellant purported to ......
-
Hill v. Boone
...1A-1, Rule 42(b)(3) of the admission of damages evidence during the liability portion of a bifurcated trial. See In re E.A. , 267 N.C. App. 396, 399, 833 S.E.2d 630, 632 (2019).3 We note Plaintiff did not make an argument regarding the exclusion of the entire video in the event a portion is......
-
Hill v. Boone
...42(b)(3) of the admission of damages evidence during the liability portion of a bifurcated trial. See In re E.A., 267 N.C.App. 396, 399, 833 S.E.2d 630, 632 (2019). [3] We note Plaintiff did not make an argument regarding the exclusion of the entire video in the event a portion is determine......
-
In re S.M.
...of the juvenile and mobilizing resources to meet the juvenile's needs. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2502(c) (2019). As the Court explained in In re E.A. , we recognize that the "area mental health services director" is now referred to as the "local management entity/managed care organization" consi......