In re O.S.R., 090517 NCCA, COA16-958

Court:Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Attorney: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. Zimmer, for juvenile-appellant.
Judge Panel:Judges DILLON and MURPHY concur.
Opinion Judge:STROUD, JUDGE.
Party Name:IN THE MATTER OF: O.S.R.
Case Date:September 05, 2017
Docket Nº:COA16-958
 
FREE EXCERPT

IN THE MATTER OF: O.S.R.

No. COA16-958

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

September 5, 2017

         An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 March 2017.

         Appeal by juvenile from order entered 9 May 2016 by Judge David V. Byrd in District Court, Yadkin County No. 11 JB 39.

          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. Zimmer, for juvenile-appellant.

          STROUD, JUDGE.

         Juvenile appeals from the district court's order imposing a Level 3 disposition and ordering an indefinite commitment with release or extension to be evaluated after six months. Because the trial court made proper findings of fact but not all of these findings were included in the adjudication order, we remand the adjudication order for the trial court to enter additional written findings reflecting the oral findings made at the adjudication hearing. We find no error with the disposition order, but since the trial court must first enter the additional findings in the adjudication order on remand, we must vacate the disposition order so that the trial court can enter a new disposition order after entry of the adjudication order on remand.

         Facts

         On 19 April 2016, the State filed three juvenile petitions alleging that Oscar1, age 14, had committed the following offenses: (1) operating a motor vehicle without a license, (2) speeding; and (3) failure to secure a child in a safety seat or seat belt. The underlying events occurred on 3 April 2016, while Oscar was on a home visit from the Timber Ridge Treatment Center, an out-of-home placement program. Oscar went to visit his 14-year-old girlfriend and their one-year-old child at her house. Oscar's 16-year-old sister came to pick everyone up and drive them from Jonesville to Yadkinville. At some point, Oscar took over driving, and he was subsequently pulled over by police for speeding. The one-year-old child was in the backseat without a safety seat and was not secured at all.

         The case came on for adjudication on 5 May 2016. The State agreed to dismiss the petitions for the infractions of speeding and failure to secure a child in a safety seat or seat belt in exchange for Oscar's admission to operating a motor vehicle without a license, a Class 2 misdemeanor. Following his admission, a disposition order was entered the same day imposing a Level 3 disposition and ordering an indefinite commitment with release or extension to be evaluated after 6 months. Oscar gave oral notice of appeal that same day.

         The State requested that Oscar be in secure custody while the appeal was pending, and the secure custody hearing was continued until 9 May 2016 to consider alternative placements. On 9 May 2016, the trial court entered an order for secure custody and Oscar's release was not authorized pending appeal. An amended disposition order was also entered on 9 May 2016. Oscar timely appealed to this Court.

         Discussion

         Oscar argues that the disposition order must be reversed because the trial court failed to make written findings of fact demonstrating that it considered the factors listed in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2501(c) (2015) and that the adjudication order must also be reversed for failure to make sufficient findings. "We review a lower court's alleged statutory errors de novo." In re K.C., 226 N.C.App. 452, 462, 742 S.E.2d 239, 246 (2013).

         I. Adjudication Order

         We will address Oscar's second argument first, since the trial court cannot enter a disposition...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP