Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights.After a hearing, the trial court entered orders adjudicating grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (3) and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights in her children was in the children's best interests. View "In re N.C.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that Mother could not prevail on her ineffective assistance of counsel claim.After a hearing, the trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (6). The trial court then concluded that it would be in the child's best interest for Mother's parental rights to be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court failed to ensure that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother failed to demonstrate that, but for the alleged deficiency by counsel, there was a reasonable probability of a different result. View "In re Z.M.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting a motion for class certification filed after a summary judgment motion had been granted in favor of the plaintiff in this case, Plantation Building of Wilmington, Inc., holding that no reversible error occurred.The defendant, the Town of Leland, consented to and joined a motion for continuance filed by Plaintiff. The trial court granted the motion. Thereafter, the trial court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant's competing motion. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the motion for continuance identified that the issue of class certification would be resolved after addressing the cross-motions for summary judgment and the parties did not follow the sequence, Defendant waived any objection it may have had to the court granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification after granting Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. View "Plantation Building of Wilmington, Inc. v. Town of Leland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals holding that the trial court did not err in declining to give Defendant's requested modified self-defense instruction at trial, holding that Defendant failed to demonstrate on appeal that any error was prejudicial.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that Defendant needed to have believed it was necessary to kill the victim in order to have acted in self-defense. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed, holding that Defendant did not show a reasonable possibility that had the modified self-defense instruction been given a different result would have been reached at trial. View "State v. Leaks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights on the grounds of neglect and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court erred.Petitioners filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on several grounds. Following hearings, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and willful abandonment. The trial court entered a separate order concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court (1) erred in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on willful abandonment, and (2) failed to make any findings regarding the likelihood of future neglect. View "In re B.R.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's order terminating Father's parental rights in his son, holding that the failure of the Transylvania County Department of Social Services (DSS) to verify its motion in the cause for termination, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1104, deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.After conducting a hearing on the DSS' motion seeking termination of Father's parental rights, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights. On appeal, Father argued as his sole point that DSS' failure to verify its motion for termination deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the trial court's order, holding (1) the requirement contained in subsection 7B-1104 is jurisdictional as applied to both a petition for termination and a motion for termination; and (2) DSS' failure to verify its motion in the cause deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. View "In re O.E.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the business court refusing to authorize the court-appointed receiver for the company A Perfect Fit For You, Inc. to pay fees to the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson (US), LLP for services rendered by Philip Mohr, one of the firm's attorneys, holding that the business court erred.The business court refused authorization solely on the basis of its conclusion that Mohr and the receiver had flagrantly disregarded requirements imposed by a previous court order establishing the process Womble and the receiver were required to follow when requesting authorization for fee payments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the business court (1) abused its discretion in denying authorization for the receiver to pay Womble fees incurred for Mohr's work; (2) erred in imposing monetary sanctions on Womble; and (3) erred in denying the receiver's request for permission to pay Womble's fee-litigation fees without making the necessary findings regarding the value to the receivership of the work that generated those fees. View "Bandy v. A Perfect Fit For You, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's order in this case, which imposed continuous GPS tracking using a small, unobtrusive ankle monitor on Defendant for life, constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable, continuing, warrantless search.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree kidnapping, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first-degree forcible rape. Upon Defendant's release from his active sentence the State filed a petition to impose lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) on Defendant. After a hearing, the trial court filed a form order imposing lifetime SBM upon Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, and the State appealed. On appeal, Defendant argued that the imposition of lifetime SBM under the General Assembly's enacted statutory scheme governing the program was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the implementation of lifetime satellite-based monitoring was constitutionally permissible and applicable to Defendant under the Fourth Amendment under the specific facts of Defendant's case. View "State v. Strudwick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in this criminal sentencing case, holding that there was no error in the determination that Defendant's out-of-state conviction may be counted as an elevated felony classification for purposes of sentencing in North Carolina trial courts, as set forth in State v. Sanders, 367 N.C. 716 (2014).Defendant was found guilty of one count of sexual offense with a child by an adult. In sentencing Defendant, the trial court treated Defendant's Georgia statutory rape conviction as a Class B1 felony because the court regarding the Georgia statute under which Defendant was convicted was similar to North Carolina's statutory rape statute. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err as to finding substantial similarity between the Georgia and North Carolina statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals properly applied the comparative elements test in affirming the trial court's consideration of Defendant's previous Georgia conviction for statutory rape as equivalent to a North Carolina Class B1 felony for the purpose of the calculation of prior record level points in criminal sentencing. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of multiple assaults against his girlfriend, holding that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to dismiss all but one assault charge.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree kidnapping and several counts of assault. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant asserted that there was insufficient evidence of multiple assaults such that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss all but one assault charge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in the light most favorable to the State, Defendant committed multiple assaults against his girlfriend where the evidence tended to show that he beat her in her family's trailer and also in her car as they traveled home. View "State v. Dew" on Justia Law