Swindell, Matter of
| Decision Date | 05 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 367PA89,367PA89 |
| Citation | 326 N.C. 473,390 S.E.2d 134 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | In the Matter of Antoine SWINDELL. |
David B. Wilson, Salisbury, for juvenile-appellant.
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen., Raleigh by T. Lane Mallonee, Black Mountain, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Div. of Social Services, Dept. of Human Resources.
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Doris J. Holton, Raleigh, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State-appellee.
Our decision does not require an extensive recital of the facts. In brief, the evidence showed that Antoine Swindell, age thirteen, was adjudicated delinquent on 16 June 1989 on a petition alleging he raped his eleven-year-old female cousin. Antoine is mildly retarded, has an IQ of 57, and has repeated the first, second, and third grades. He resides with his mother and three sisters and has not seen his father in ten years. This was Antoine's first court appearance.
The risk assessment prepared by the court psychologist indicated that Antoine was likely to be a repeat offender. This determination was based on his difficulties in school, his negative family relationships, his minimization of the victim's hurt, his resistance to discussing the offense, his unsophisticated view of sexuality, and his history of aggressive behavior. The psychologist recommended that the court either place the juvenile on probation and arrange for outpatient treatment or place the juvenile in an inpatient adolescent sex offender treatment facility. North Carolina presently has no such facility for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders. On 12 July 1989 the trial court committed Antoine to training school and ordered the state to develop and implement an adolescent sex offender treatment program for this and other juveniles "fitting his description" on or before 13 October 1989.
Two issues arise on appeal. We do not have to decide the first as it is now moot. In that issue the juvenile contends that the trial court's order committing him to training school without first fully considering possible alternative treatment measures violated N.C.G.S. § 7A-652 and was reversible error. The record discloses that the juvenile was conditionally released from custody on 19 January 1990. "[A]s a general rule this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation has been settled between the parties or has ceased to exist." Kendrick v. Cain, 272 N.C. 719, 722, 159 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1968); N.C. State Bar v. Randolph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKenzie
...(holding a claim involving criminal sentencing was moot because the defendant had already served the sentence); In re Swindell, 326 N.C. 473, 474–75, 390 S.E.2d 134, 135 (1990) (holding a juvenile's appeal of a trial court order sending him to a “training school” was moot because he had alr......
-
State v. Stover
..."`this Court will not hear an appeal when the subject matter of the litigation . . . has ceased to exist.'" In re Swindell, 326 N.C. 473, 474, 390 S.E.2d 134, 135 (1990) (quoting Kendrick v. Cain, 272 N.C. 719, 722, 159 S.E.2d 33, 35 (1968)). Once a defendant is released from custody, "the ......
-
Doe, Matter of, No. 434PA88
...the Division of Youth Services, to develop and implement specific treatment programs and facilities for juveniles." In re Swindell, 326 N.C. at 475, 390 S.E.2d at 136. See also In re Wharton, 305 N.C. 565, 573, 290 S.E.2d 688, 693 (1982). The Court of Appeals has similarly held that, even t......
-
Autry, Matter of
...his conditional release. In the Matter of Baxley, 74 N.C.App. at 531, 328 S.E.2d at 833. Further, the State cites In re Swindell, 326 N.C. 473, 390 S.E.2d 134 (1990), where our Supreme Court held that the trial court "exceeded the scope of its authority in ordering the State of North Caroli......