Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father in their two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in any issue raised by Parents' appeals.The Supreme Court affirmed the orders below, holding (1) contrary to Father's argument on appeal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Father's counsel to withdraw from representing him at the termination hearing; and (2) contrary to Mother's argument on appeal, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that terminating Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. View "In re T.A.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court finding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights to his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (5) and that termination was in the child's best interests, holding that Father did not carry his burden to show ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Father's sole argument - raised for the first time on appeal - was that his appointed trial counsel was ineffective, and therefore, the Supreme Court should reverse the portion of the trial court's order concluding that the ground set forth in section 7B-1111(a)(5) existed to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's ineffective assistance of counsel claim was without merit. View "In re B.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2)-(3), and (7), holding that the trial court's findings of fact supporting its termination of Father's parental rights were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights in his child and 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 properly terminated Father's parental rights in his child pursuant to N.C. Gen. Laws 7B-1111(a)(3). View "In re J.E.E.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights in their two daughters, Elyse and Elizabeth, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its best interests determination as to Elyse and Elizabeth. On appeal, the parents argued that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate the parents' parental rights. Mother only challenged the court's best interests determination as to Elyse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Elyse's best interests and that termination of Father's parental rights was in Elizabeth's best interests. View "In re E.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that there were grounds pursuant too N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7) to terminate Father's parental rights as to the child.In terminating Father's parental rights to his child, the trial court concluded that five grounds existed for termination and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that unchallenged findings of fact, based on clear and convincing evidence in the record, supported the trial court's conclusion that Father willfully abandoned the child, and the ground of willful abandonment was sufficient to support the trial court's order of termination. View "In re I.J.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights in her two children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2) and determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not (1) abuse its discretion by failing, sua sponte, to conduct an inquiry into whether she should be appointed a guardian ad litem to assist her during the termination hearing; (2) err by concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights in her children; and (3) abuse its discretion in determining that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. View "In re M.S.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three minor children, holding that the trial court correctly found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of at least one of the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a) and that termination of her parental rights in the children would be in their best interests.In its termination order, the trial court determined that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect, section 7B-1111(a)(1), and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that resulted in the children's removal to a placement outside the family home, section 7B-1111(a)(2). The court further determined that the termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "In re Z.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of speeding ninety-four miles per hour in a sixty-five mile-per-hour zone, holding that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to a jury trial.In affirming Defendant's conviction, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that, even though the trial court failed to follow the statutory procedure for waiver of Defendant's right to a jury trial, Defendant was not prejudiced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although the trial court's colloquy was untimely, the facts demonstrated that Defendant understood he was waiving his right to a trial by jury and the consequences of that decision; and (2) Defendant did not meet his burden of demonstrating that there was no reasonable possibility that had the error not been committed a different result would have been reached in a bench trial or a jury trial. View "State v. Hamer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the trial court terminating Parents' parental rights to their children pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6), holding that a lack of sufficient findings compelled the court to vacate the order terminating Mother's parental rights to S.B. under section 7B-1111(a)(6).The Craven County Department of Social Services (DSS) filed petitions alleging that Parents' three children (collectively, the older children) were neglected and dependent juveniles. The trial court adjudicated the older children as neglected and dependent. Thereafter, Mother gave birth to S.B. The trial court entered an order adjudicating S.B. a dependent juvenile because the older children were in DSS custody and Parents had made no progress toward reunification with them. Eventually, the trial court terminated Parents' parental rights to the older children pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6), and terminated Parents' parental rights to S.B. pursuant to sections 7B-1111(a)(2) and (6). The Supreme Court affirmed the orders terminating Parents' parental rights to the older children but vacated the order terminating Mother's parental rights to S.B., holding that the trial court did not make sufficient findings to support the termination of parental rights under section 7B-1111(a)(6). View "In re M.J.R.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals finding Defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon, holding that there was no error in Defendant's conviction.After the jury returned its verdict Defendant pleaded guilty to attaining habitual felon status. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor's statements during closing argument did not constitute prejudicial error and that Defendant failed to show that the trial court erred in not intervening ex mero motu. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the misstatements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments were not extreme or grossly improper and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to intervene ex mero motu. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law