In re W.M.C.M.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. COA20-164,COA20-164 |
| Citation | 857 S.E.2d 875 |
| Parties | In the MATTER OF: W.M.C.M. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Stephanie A. Brennan, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender David W. Andrews, for juvenile-appellant.
¶ 1 The juvenile ("Walter") appeals from an order, which imposed a Level 3 disposition and committed Walter to a youth development center ("YDC"). See N.C. R. App. P. 42(b)(4) (). We affirm.
¶ 2 Walter was 15 years old at the time of this dispositional hearing. He was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder
, conduct disorder, ADHD, cannabis use disorder, and tobacco-related disorder in August 2018.
¶ 3 Walter broke into a storage unit on 2 August 2018. In September 2018, Walter was placed into custody of the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services ("DSS") after a court determined his mother was unable to provide proper care and discipline over him. While in DSS custody, Walter broke into two vehicles on 1 October 2018.
¶ 4 DSS placed Walter into a group home in October 2018, from which he fled. He was located, taken into custody, and placed into secure custody in a juvenile detention facility.
¶ 5 Several additional criminal charges and probation violations were pending against Walter at the time he appeared with appointed counsel at the December 2018 adjudication hearing.
¶ 6 Petitions alleged Walter had committed two counts of breaking and entering into a motor vehicle, and one count of felony breaking and entering on 31 December 2018. As part of an agreement with the State, Walter entered an admission to the breaking and entering petition and one of the breaking and entering a motor vehicle petitions. The State agreed to dismiss several additional pending charges, voluntarily dismissed a motion for review based on a probation violation and declined to seek additional petitions for Walter's conduct and actions.
¶ 7 The court informed Walter of his constitutional and statutory rights. Based upon Walter's admissions, and after the State had provided a factual basis for the petitions, the court stated it was "going to adjudicate [Walter] delinquent as to the charge of felony breaking and entering and felony breaking and entering of a motor vehicle." The trial court recorded these findings and conclusions on the Arraignment Order.
¶ 8 The dispositional hearing was calendared for 23 January 2019. Walter fled when he arrived at the courthouse. As a result of Walter's flight, the hearing was rescheduled for 29 January 2019. The juvenile court counselor recommended committing Walter to a YDC. After hearing arguments, the court took the matter under advisement and continued the case to February 2019.
¶ 9 The court held an emergency hearing at the request of DSS on 14 February 2019. An attorney for DSS reported an incident where Walter punched a concrete wall. DSS’ attorney reported Walter was "very anxious" about the outcome of his case. A social worker for DSS noted that Walter had also been banging his head against a wall, was violent, and required restraint several times before the hearing. The court granted DSS’ request for medication.
¶ 10 The case was heard again on 25 February 2019. The court again continued the case due to an "overwhelming amount of information" regarding Walter's actions and mental health.
¶ 11 At the dispositional hearing on 26 March 2019, the juvenile court counselor reported Walter had again fled from his placement. The State asked the court to commit Walter to a YDC. The court agreed and issued its Disposition and Commitment order detailing Walter's delinquency, history of criminal acts, and violent and aggressive behaviors on 1 April 2019. Walter timely appealed.
¶ 12 Appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-2602 and 7B-2604 (2019).
¶ 13 Walter argues the trial court (1) erred by adjudicating him delinquent and failing to tell him that, by entering an admission, he would waive his right to confrontation; (2) failed to enter a sufficient adjudication order; and, (3) abused its discretion by imposing the highest possible disposition.
¶ 14 An alleged violation of a statutory mandate is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. In re A.M. , 220 N.C. App. 136, 137, 724 S.E.2d 651, 653 (2012).
¶ 15 A trial court "may accept an admission from a juvenile only after determining that the admission is the product of an informed choice." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(b) (2019). To ensure an admission is informed, the trial court must first, before accepting an admission, address the juvenile personally and:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a) (2019). The trial court's failure to address these inquiries to the prejudice of the juvenile requires reversal of the adjudication. In re A.W. , 182 N.C. App. 159, 161, 641 S.E.2d 354, 356 (2007).
¶ 16 The following colloquy occurred between the trial court and Walter during the delinquency adjudication hearing:
¶ 17 Walter concedes the court provided all but the fourth warning set forth in the statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a)(4) ().
¶ 18 Walter acknowledges the court told him he had the right to "ask witnesses questions during a hearing." However, Walter asserts the trial court erred by failing to specifically tell him he would waive the right to confront witnesses by entering an admission.
¶ 19 Walter relies on the case of In re A.W. , 182 N.C. App. at 161-62, 641 S.E.2d at 356-57. In that case, this Court recognized the trial court had "failed to strictly comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B–2407." Id. This Court reversed where the trial court failed to orally inform the juvenile of his rights under the first and third prongs of the statute. Id. This Court held Id. at 162, 641 S.E.2d at 356. (emphasis omitted) (citations omitted).
¶ 20 Walter argues his adjudication must be reversed because the trial court did not follow the exact language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407. This Court dealt with a similar issue in the case of In re C.L. , 217 N.C. App. 109, 719 S.E.2d 132 (2011).
¶ 21 The issue before and reviewed by this Court in C.L. was "whether the trial court's failure to make the inquiry specified in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A–1022(d) either affected [the] Juvenile's decision to plead or undermined the plea's validity." Id. at 115, 719 S.E.2d at 136 (alterations and citations omitted). In C.L. , the trial court questioned the juvenile before his admission using the colloquy from Form AOC-J-410, entitled "Transcript of Admission by Juvenile." Id. at 110, 719 S.E.2d at 133. On appeal, the juvenile asserted "the trial court erred by failing to determine whether his Alford admission represented his free and informed choice." Id. at 113, 719 S.E.2d at 134.
¶ 22 This Court held that while the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial