Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court refusing to accept Defendant's tendered guilty plea, holding that the trial court lacked discretion to reject Defendant's plea pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1023(c).Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial court chose to reject Defendant's plea following a colloquy. After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree sex offense and taking indecent liberties with a child. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court correctly rejected Defendant's tendered guilty plea because the trial court did not find that it was the product of Defendant's informed choice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the guilty plea was based on Defendant's informed choice, a factual basis existed for the plea, and the sentencing was left to the trial court's discretion, the trial court was statutorily required to accept Defendant's guilty plea; and (2) the trial court's error prejudiced Defendant. View "State v. Chandler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to Beth, holding that the trial court did not err.After a termination hearing, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights, concluding that grounds existed for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (5), and (7). The written termination order did not explicitly state that the grounds to terminate Father's parental rights were proved by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, where the trial court stated the statutorily-mandated standard of proof in open court and there was nothing in the order indicating the trial court applied the incorrect standard of proof, the trial court did not reversibly err by failing to explicitly state the correct standard of proof in the written termination order. View "In re B.L.H." 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 abuse its discretion in failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) to assist Mother in her termination of parental rights proceeding.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was warranted on the grounds of neglect and dependency. The court also concluded that it was in the child's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into whether Mother should be appointed a GAL to assist her during the termination proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing sua sponte to conduct a second inquiry into the need to appoint a GAL for Mother. View "In re Q.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child on the grounds of willful failure to pay for the cost of care of the child and willful abandonment, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on Father's willful failure to pay for the child's care and Father's willful abandonment of the child. The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a). View "In re C.A.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the issues raised by counsel in a no-merit brief did not entitle Mother to relief.The trial court found that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (7), and (9) and that termination of Mother's parental rights to her three children was in the children's best interests. Mother appealed, and her appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in finding and concluding that a basis for termination of Mother's parental rights existed; and (2) the trial court's order was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court properly decided to terminate the parental rights of Mother.On appeal, Mother asserted that her counsel's cross-examination of a witness for the Wilkes County Department of Social Services during the termination hearing and Mother's counsel's closing arguments constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mother's counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and therefore, there was no prejudice to her in the hearing proceedings. View "In re T.N.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her two children, holding that the trial court erred in finding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2) and (6) and that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to both children.The trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect, failure to make reasonable progress, and dependency. On appeal, Mother challenged two of the trial court's findings of fact as being unsupported by the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) portions of the trial court's findings were not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact did not support its conclusions of law that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re K.D.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part orders entered by the North Carolina Utilities Commission addressing applications filed by Duke Energy Progress, LLC and Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, holding that the Commission erred by rejecting an equitable sharing proposal without properly considering and making findings and conclusions concerning "all other material facts," as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. 62-133(d).Various interveners representing the utilities' consumers appealed the Commission's orders, challenging the lawfulness of the Commission's decisions concerning the extent to which the utilities were entitled to reflect costs associated with the storage and disposal of ash resulting from electricity production in coal-fired electric generating units in the cost of service used to set the utilities' North Carolina retail rates. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the Commission (1) did not err by allowing the inclusion of a majority to the utilities' coal ash costs in the cost of service used for establishing North Carolina retail rates and in increasing Duke Energy Carolinas' residential basic facilities charge; but (2) erred in rejecting an equitable sharing proposal without making the statutorily required findings and conclusions. View "State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Stein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights in his children on the basis of a determination that his parental rights were subject to termination for neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that had led to the removal of the children from the home. The court further determined that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by finding the existence of at least one ground for terminating Father's parental rights and that termination of Father's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children. View "In re K.P.-S.T." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed orders entered by the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.The trial court entered orders terminating Mother's parental rights in the children on the basis of neglect, dependency, and willful abandonment. The court further determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court's findings of fact was harmless; and (2) the trial court did not err by determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination for dependency. View "In re A.L.S." on Justia Law