Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her four minor children, holding that the trial court properly adjudicated a ground for terminating Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2) and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate Mother's parental rights.The trial court concluded that there were four statutory grounds for terminating Mother's parental rights, including her failure to make reasonable progress under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence supported the trial court's finding that Mother acted willfully in failing to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from her home pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) the trial court did not violate the statutory mandate in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1110(a) as to its determination of the best interests of each juvenile. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the determination of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating the ground of neglect and did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court terminated Father's parental rights to his child on the grounds of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from the home. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in concluding that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights based on neglect; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. View "In re J.C.L." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights in their three minor children, holding that the trial court did not err by finding that grounds existed to support the termination of Father's parental rights and that the trial court did not err by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the best interests of the children.The trial court entered an order terminating Respondents' parental rights in the children on the basis of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress toward correcting the conditions that led to the children's removal from the family home. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The Surpeme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's findings supported its determination that Father's parental rights were subject to termination on the grounds of neglect; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights in the children would be in their best interests. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that the issue identified by counsel in Father's brief as arguably supporting the appeal was meritless.Father was convicted of criminal conduct against his child. Thereafter, the trial court terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of abuse and/or neglect. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). Father filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the trial court's orders. Father's counsel filed a no-merit brief on his client's behalf, stating why the one issue that could arguably support an appeal lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's orders were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and were based on proper legal grounds. View "In re R.A.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their child, holding that the trial court correctly determined that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Father's parental rights and did not abuse its discretion by determining that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court found that grounds existed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) to terminate both Respondents' parental rights and that additional grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(5), (7), and (9). The trial court also concluded that termination of Respondents' parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err by concluding that grounds existed pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(9) to terminate Father's parental rights; (2) the trial court's findings of fact were supported by sufficient evidence; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re N.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the trial court did not err in adjudicating the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1).The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), and (6). Mother appealed, challenging the existence of all three grounds to terminate her parental rights. The Supreme Court addressed only Mother's arguments as to the ground of neglect under section 7B-1111(a)(1) and affirmed, holding (1) the challenged findings of fact were supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence; and (2) the findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights for neglect. View "In re M.C." 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 evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(2), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests.The trial court terminated Mother's parental rights on the ground that she willfully failed to make reasonable progress to correct the conditions that led to the child's removal from her care. See section 7B-1111(a)(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence and findings of fact supported the trial court's conclusion that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(2); and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights. View "In re A.B.C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Defendant could not be separately convicted and punished for the offenses of both habitual misdemeanor assault and felony assault inflicting serious bodily injury stemming from the same act.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of habitual misdemeanor assault and felony assault. The court of appeals vacated the trial court's judgment on the offense of habitual misdemeanor assault, holding that the trial court erred in entering judgment and sentencing Defendant for both habitual misdemeanor assault and felony assault given that both offenses arose from the same act. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that (1) Defendant could not be separately convicted and punished for both misdemeanor assault and felony assault based on the same conduct; but (2) Defendant's conviction for habitual misdemeanor assault should have been arrested rather than vacated. View "State v. Fields" on Justia Law

For the reasons articulated in State v. Ramseur, N.C. Jun. 5, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the orders of the trial court concluding that the claims in Defendant's second motion for appropriate relief (MAR) pursuant to the North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA) and amended RJA MAR were void due to the repeal of the RJA, holding that the evidentiary provisions contained in the original, unamended RJA applied to the adjudication of Defendant's RJA claims.In 1993, Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In 2010, Defendant filed his second RJA MAR arguing that he was entitled to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2012, the General Assembly amended the RJA. Thereafter, Defendant filed an amendment to his RJA MAR. In 2013, the General Assembly repealed the RJA. Defendant then filed a second amendment to his RJA MAR. The trial court denied as being without merit and as being procedurally barred all of Defendant's claims under the RJA. The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's orders, holding (1) the RJA repeal and the 2012 amendments to the RJA cannot be constitutionally applied in Defendant's case; and (2) the trial court erred by denying Defendant's RJA claims without a hearing. View "State v. Burke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Defendant's motion seeking relief pursuant to the newly enacted North Carolina Racial Justice Act (RJA) on the basis that the RJA had been repealed before the trial court ruled on Defendant's motion, holding that applying the repeal retroactively violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.In 2010, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Defendant subsequently brought his RJA motion, claiming that race was a significant factor in the decision to seek or impose the death penalty. In 2012, the General Assembly amended the RJA. In 2013, the General Assembly repealed the RJA in its entirety. The trial court dismissed Defendant's RJA claims, concluding that this repeal rendered Defendant's pending motion void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the RJA repeal and the provisions of the amended RJA altering the evidentiary requirements for an RJA claim constitute impermissible ex post facto laws and cannot constitutionally be applied retroactively to Defendant's pending RJA claims. View "State v. Ramseur" on Justia Law