Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea but that the guilty plea must be accepted or rejected as a whole, not in part.The trial court sentenced Defendant to separate and consecutive sentences based on several assault charges arising from one assaultive episode. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the State did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the trial court to enter judgments on multiple assault charges. The court then remanded the case with instructions to arrest two lesser judgments and to repentance Defendant on the remaining charges. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the facts presented at the plea hearing did not establish that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults, and therefore, the court of appeals properly found that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea; and (2) there was no basis for rejecting Defendant's guilty plea in part. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court's unchallenged findings did not fully support its adjudication of neglect as grounds for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect and terminating Father's parental rights on this ground. View "In re K.Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for driving while impaired, holding that even if the admission of certain testimony was erroneous under N.C. R. Evid. 701, Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that such assumed error was prejudicial.At issue was the testimony of Officer Henry Carssow, who responded at the scene of a moped accident in which Defendant was involved. Officer Carssow applied for a search warrant to obtain a sample of Defendant's blood to check his blood alcohol concentration. A magistrate executed and signed the application. After Defendant's blood was drawn he was charged and ultimately convicted of unlawfully and willfully operating a motor vehicle while subject to an impairing substance. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, ruling that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Officer Carssow's lay witness opinion that Defendant was driving the moped at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Officer Carssow's testimony was properly preserved for appeal; and (2) even if the admission of the testimony was erroneous, Defendant failed to show that such assumed error was prejudicial. View "State v. Delau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the trial court did not err in finding past neglect or in determining that there was a likelihood of future neglect and that termination was in the child's best interests.After a termination hearing, the trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect and that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children based on neglect and failure to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the children from the home, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.N.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, Daniel, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that Father had neglected Daniel and that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect by Father. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The trial court further concluded that it was in Daniel's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged only the trial court's determination that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if Daniel was returned to Father's care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's argument was without merit. View "In re D.I.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order adjudicating that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her children based on neglect and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). On appeal, Mother challenged this determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings provided overwhelming support for the trial court's determination that there was a likelihood of a repetition of neglect. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Rob, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights to three of his children, including Rob. The court found that grounds existed for termination of Father's parental rights for neglect and failure to make reasonable progress and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. On appeal, Father alleged that the trial court abused its discretion in its best interests determination as to Rob. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination of Father's parental rights was in Rob's best interests. View "In re K.N.L.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her minor child, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (a)(2) and determined that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court based its findings of fact and conclusions of law on sufficient evidence and appropriately terminated Mother's parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) termination was in the child's best interest. View "In re D.D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his child, holding that there was no error.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willfully leaving the child in foster care for more than twelve months without a showing of reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The trial court also determined that it was in the child's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that there was a probability of a repetition of neglect if the child was returned to Father's custody and that this ground was sufficient to support the termination of Father's parental rights. View "In re A.E.S.H." on Justia Law