Opinion

In re: J.B.

  • 257 N.C. App. 299
  • 809 S.E.2d 353
Court
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Filed
Jan 2, 2018
Status
Published
Author
Dillon
On the bench
Calabria, Dillon
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 13.5%

noting that “the delinquency history worksheet . . . tabulates the juvenile’s prior history points” and relying on it for the juvenile’s delinquency history

How later courts described this case

  • noting that “the delinquency history worksheet . . . tabulates the juvenile’s prior history points” and relying on it for the juvenile’s delinquency history
  • “A contention not raised at the trial court may not generally be raised for the first time on appeal.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DILLON, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority's conclusion to reject the juvenile's argument concerning the proof of ownership of the property which was allegedly damaged by the juvenile.

With respect to the juvenile's argument concerning the State's failure to plead in the petition that the owner was an entity capable of owning property, I recognize that for purposes of an indictment, such a mistake could be raised for the first time on appeal. However, I conclude that the owner's capability of owning property does not need have been pleaded with the same specificity as in an indictment. See State v. Jones , --- N.C. App. ----, ----, 805 S.E.2d 701 , 705 (2017) (holding that a citation for a misdemeanor need not plead each element with the same specificity as required for an indictment).

I dissent, however, from the majority's conclusion that the matter needs to be remanded for resentencing. Here, the trial court sentenced the juvenile to an intermittent confinement. Under Section 7B-2506 of the North Carolina General Statutes, a confinement of up to 5 days is considered a level 1 disposition under subsection (12), and a confinement of up to 14 days is considered a level 2 disposition under subsection (20). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2506 (2015).

Here, as the majority points out, the trial court properly determined that the juvenile was a level 2 offender. I conclude that the trial court in the present case acted properly in sentencing the juvenile to a level 2 disposition by sentencing the juvenile to 10 days of intermittent confinement.

The "error" cited by the majority is, in reality, simply clerical. Specifically, the version of the pre-printed AOC judgment form used by *307 the trial court contains only one place where the judge can select an intermittent confinement as a disposition:

Intermittent Confinement . [ N.C.G.S. 7B-2506(12).] The juvenile be confined on an intermittent basis in an approved detention facility as follows: _____________________.

Here, the trial judge checked the box and wrote in "10 days detention," an appropriate level 2 disposition for a level 2 offender under G.S. 7B-2506(20). The "error," though, is that the form cites to subsection (12), which provides for the level 1 intermittent confinement disposition. The pre-printed form does not expressly cite to subsection (20) of G.S. 7B-2506.

I conclude that the trial judge's intent to sentence the juvenile to a 10-day confinement, an appropriate disposition for a level 2 offender, is clear: the judge wrote in "10 days detention." Of course, it would be better if the pre-printed form cited to both G.S. 7B-2506(12) and to G.S. 7B-2506(20). My vote is to affirm the order of the trial court but remand that matter to fix the clerical error to delete the reference to subsection (12) of G.S. 7B-2506 on the pre-printed form.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.