{ "id": 8201800, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: D.A.S.", "name_abbreviation": "In re D.A.S.", "decision_date": "2007-05-01", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1133", "first_page": "107", "last_page": "114", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "183 N.C. App. 107" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "640 S.E.2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637762 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779", "parenthetical": "\"[W]e will not review [appellants]'s unargued assignments of error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/640/0777-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 N.C. App. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8375565 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597", "parenthetical": "\"[W]e will not review [appellants]'s unargued assignments of error.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/181/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "398 S.E.2d 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" }, { "parenthetical": "witness's testimony was neither hearsay nor prejudicial to the defendant" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527515 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "710" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0706-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "574" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683884 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 S.E.2d 591", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573829 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "662" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "567 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 6, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "229" }, { "parenthetical": "quotations and citations omitted" }, { "page": "229" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9082328 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737" }, { "page": "737" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0733-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 582, "char_count": 14554, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08, "percentile": 0.5218551351835571 }, "sha256": "a3a1d36fadf85107e179b9e9faaf692970a2bc7d611c0a97a4dc58be3814cdcd", "simhash": "1:8f6ad62a765e1be3", "word_count": 2306 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:58.512650+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER and JACKSON concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: D.A.S." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nD.A.S. (\u201cthe juvenile\u201d) appeals from adjudication orders and disposition and commitment order entered finding him to be delinquent for assault on a government employee and activating his suspended sentence after a probation violation hearing. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn 23 January 2006, the fourteen-year-old juvenile attended a behavioral and emotionally handicapped class with three other students taught by Alamance County Teacher Latoya Turner (\u201cMs. Turner\u201d). The juvenile became angry after Ms. Turner would not immediately assist him. Ms. Turner was working with other students in the classroom. Ms. Turner told the juvenile to calm down. After the juvenile continued to disrupt the classroom, Ms. Turner told the juvenile to leave the classroom. The juvenile threw his pencil and class work on the floor and stated, \u201cF*** you, f*** the school and f*** you all.\u201d Ms. Turner opened the classroom door and held it open with her hand to allow the juvenile to leave. The juvenile walked toward Ms. Turner and kicked the door with sufficient force to sprain Ms. Turner\u2019s wrist. The juvenile admitted he intentionally kicked the door.\nOn 21 February 2006, a juvenile petition was filed against the juvenile for assault on a government employee and a motion for review for a probation violation for his previous 6 October 2005 adjudication of delinquency for simple assault and six months probation.\nOn 23 February 2006, the trial court adjudicated the juvenile to be delinquent for assault on a government employee and for violating the terms of the conditions of his juvenile probation. On 23 March 2006, the trial court entered a Level 3 disposition and commitment order placing the juvenile in a youth development center for a minimum of six months. The juvenile appeals.\nII. Issues\nThe juvenile argues the trial court erred when it: (1) denied his motion to continue; (2) entered a Level 3 delinquency; (3) asked the juvenile court counselor to state the juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions; and (4) entered findings of fact.\nIII. Psychological Evaluation\nThe juvenile argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion to continue. The juvenile also argues the trial court erred when it failed to consider his psychological history during the dispositional hearing. We disagree.\nA. Standard of Review\nWhen reviewing a denial of a motion to continue, this Court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. 733, 737, 567 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2002). \u201cAn abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court\u2019s ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d Id. (quotations and citations omitted).\nB. Analysis\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(a) (2005), the trial court \u201cmay consider written reports or other evidence concerning the needs of the juvenile\u201d at a dispositional hearing. \u201cThe court may consider any evidence, including hearsay evidence as defined in G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801, that the court finds to be relevant, reliable, and necessary to determine the needs of the juvenile and the most appropriate disposition.\u201d Id. \u201cThe juvenile and the juvenile\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian shall have an opportunity to present evidence, and they may advise the court concerning the disposition they believe to be in the best interests of the juvenile.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(b) (2005).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 (2005):\nThe court shall proceed to the dispositional hearing upon receipt of the predisposition report. A risk and needs assessment, containing information regarding the juvenile\u2019s social, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history, as well as any factors indicating the probability of the juvenile committing further delinquent acts, shall be conducted for the juvenile and shall be attached to the predisposition report.\nThe trial court may continue the dispositional hearing to enable the juvenile to gather and present evidence. In re Vinson, 298 N.C. 640, 662, 260 S.E.2d 591, 605 (1979). If the juvenile requests a continuance, when determining the best interest of a child, any competent and relevant evidence to a showing of the best interest of that child must be heard and considered by the trial court, subject to the discretionary powers of the trial court to exclude cumulative testimony. In re Shue, 311 N.C. 586, 597, 319 S.E.2d 567, 574 (1984).\nThe juvenile\u2019s attorney moved to continue the dispositional hearing in order to obtain a psychological evaluation dated 24 May 2002 that was not included in the juvenile\u2019s court file. The trial court denied the motion.\nThe trial court reviewed and determined the juvenile\u2019s Juvenile-Family Data Sheet, Risk Assessment, and Needs Assessment. The Juvenile-Family Data Sheet addressed the juvenile\u2019s psychological condition on 7 April 2004 and stated the juvenile \u201chas been prescribed Adderall for his mental health issues in the past. He presently is still on that medication and is being followed by Dr. Ward at Children and Youth Services.\u201d The trial court did not consider the juvenile\u2019s four-year-old 24 May 2002 psychological evaluation which was conducted when he was approximately ten years old.\nThe trial court possessed the discretion to deny the juvenile\u2019s motion to continue to obtain cumulative documentation and did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion to continue in order for the juvenile\u2019s counsel to obtain the four-year-old psychological evaluation. The juvenile\u2019s more recent psychological information was included in his Juvenile-Family Data Sheet. We do not address whether a continuance would have been appropriate in the absence of a current psychological evaluation. This assignment of error is overruled.\nIV. Dispositional Level\nThe juvenile argues the trial court erred when it found he had committed a violent offense and entered a Level 3 disposition and commitment order placing him in a youth development center. We disagree.\n\u201cOnce a juvenile is placed in a dispositional level, the statutes provide dispositional alternatives which may be utilized by the trial court.\u201d In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. at 737, 567 S.E.2d at 229. \u201cHowever, in those instances where there is a choice of level, there are no specific guidelines solely directed at resolving that issue.\u201d Id. \u201cAccordingly, choosing between two appropriate dispositional levels is within the trial court\u2019s discretion.\u201d Id.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506 (2005) lists twenty-four dispositional alternatives for a juvenile delinquent. The trial court may \u201c[c]ommit the juvenile to the Department for placement in a youth development center in accordance with G.S. 7B-2513 for \u00e1 period of not less than six months.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B~2506(24) (2005).\nThe juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for assault oh a government employee. Assault on a government employee is a Class A1 misdemeanor. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33(c) (2005). \u201cThe delinquency history level for a delinquent juvenile is determined by calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the juvenile\u2019s prior adjudications and to the juvenile\u2019s probation status, if any, that the court finds to have been proved in accordance with this section.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507(a) (2005).\nThe juvenile correctly recognizes that under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508, a Class A-l misdemeanor is a \u201cserious\u201d offense. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(a)(2) (adjudication of a Class A1 misdemeanor is a \u201cserious\u201d offense). The trial court\u2019s statement that \u201cthis assaultive behavior was violent\u201d does not reflect that the trial court incorrectly labeled the offense under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508. The trial court found the juvenile to be a Level 3 because he committed a \u201cserious\u201d Class A-l misdemeanor and he had a \u201chigh\u201d prior delinquency history. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507. The trial court possessed the discretion to enter the delinquency Level 3. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508. The juvenile has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in entering a Level 3 disposition. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. The State\u2019s Direct Examination\nThe juvenile argues the trial court erred when it asked the juvenile court counselor to state the juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions. We disagree.\n\u201cThe court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 614(b) (2005). \u201cThe court may also question a witness for the purpose of clarifying a witnesses],testimony and for promoting a better understanding of it.\u201d State v. Chandler, 100 N.C. App. 706, 710, 398 S.E.2d 337, 339 (1990). \u201cSuch examination must be conducted with care and in a manner which avoids prejudice to either party.\u201d Id. (witness\u2019s testimony was neither hearsay nor prejudicial to the defendant).\nJuvenile Court Counselor Chris Stone (\u201cStone\u201d) testified the juvenile was sentenced to six months suspended for simple assault and placed on probation on 6 October 2005. The district attorney asked Stone whether he had a recommendation for the juvenile\u2019s disposition for his current case. The trial court stated, \u201c[y]ou need to ask him what were the terms of his conditions\u201d for the probation. In response, the district attorney asked Stone about the juvenile\u2019s terms and conditions from his probation.\nThe trial court\u2019s statement that the district attorney should ask Stone about the juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions was neither opinion nor hearsay testimony. The court\u2019s question clarified Stone\u2019s testimony and provided the court with a better understanding of Stone\u2019s recommended disposition. The juvenile has failed to show how the trial court\u2019s question prejudiced him. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Findings of Fact\nThe juvenile argues the trial court erred when it entered its findings of fact. We dismiss this assignment of error.\nThe juvenile has failed to cite any authority supporting his argument and \u201cadopt[ed] and incorporate [d] the arguments set out in\u201d the previous argument. The juvenile failed to cite any legal authority in any section of his brief to support his argument that the trial court erred when it entered its findings of fact.\n\u201cThe body of the argument . . . shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2007); see Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Woodley, 181 N.C. App. 594, 597, 640 S.E.2d 777, 779 (2007) (\u201c[W]e will not review [appellants]\u2019s unargued assignments of error.\u201d). This assignment of error is abandoned and dismissed.\nVIL Conclusion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the juvenile\u2019s motion to continue for his counsel to obtain the four-year-old cumulative psychological report. Documentation supporting the juvenile\u2019s more recent psychological condition was before the trial court during the delinquency hearing.\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion when it adjudicated the juvenile to be a Level 3 delinquent and placed him in a youth development center.\nThe trial court did not prejudice the juvenile when it asked the district attorney to clarify Stone\u2019s testimony regarding his recommendation for the juvenile\u2019s Level 3 delinquency.\nThe juvenile has failed to cite any authority or argue his assignment of error regarding the trial court\u2019s findings of fact.\nThe juvenile received a fair hearing, free from prejudicial errors he preserved, assigned, and argued.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER and JACKSON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State.", "Jon W. Myers, for juvenile-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: D.A.S.\nNo. COA06-1133\n(Filed 1 May 2007)\n1. Juveniles\u2014 delinquency \u2014 denial of motion for continuance \u2014 psychological evaluation\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency and probation violation case by denying appellant juvenile\u2019s motion to continue and by failing to consider his psychological history during the dispositional hearing, because: (1) the trial court possessed the discretion to deny the juvenile\u2019s motion to continue to obtain cumulative documentation and did not abuse its discretion when it denied his motion to continue in order for the juvenile\u2019s counsel to obtain a four-year-old psychological evaluation; and (2) the juvenile\u2019s more recent psychological information was included in his Juvenile-Family Data Sheet.\n2. Juveniles\u2014 delinquency \u2014 Level 3 disposition \u2014 commitment\" to youth development center\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency and probation violation case by finding appellant juvenile had committed a violent offense and by entering a Level 3 disposition and commitment order placing him in a youth development center, because: (1) the trial court found the juvenile committed a serious Class A-l misdemeanor and had a high prior delinquency history; (2) the trial court possessed the discretion to enter the delinquency Level 3 under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2508; and (3) the juvenile failed to show the trial court abused its discretion.\n3. Probation and Parole\u2014 court asked counselor to state juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions \u2014 clarification\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency and probation violation case by asking the juvenile court counselor to state the juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions, because: (1) the trial court\u2019s statement that the district attorney should ask the counselor about the juvenile\u2019s probation terms and conditions was neither opinion nor hearsay testimony; (2) the court\u2019s question clarified the counselor\u2019s testimony and provided the court with a better understanding of the counselor\u2019s recommended disposition; and (3) the juvenile failed to show how the trial court\u2019s question prejudiced him.\n4. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to cite authority\nAlthough appellant juvenile contends the trial court erred when it entered its findings of fact in a juvenile delinquency and probation violation case, this assignment of error is dismissed because: (1) the juvenile failed to cite any authority supporting his argument and adopted and incorporated the arguments set out in the previous argument; (2) the juvenile failed to cite any legal authority in any section of his brief to support his argument; and (3) N.C. R. \u00c1pp. R 28(b)(6) requires the body of the argument shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies.\nAppeal by juvenile from orders entered 23 February 2006 and 23 March 2006 by Judge Bradley R. Allen in Alamance County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 April 2007.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State.\nJon W. Myers, for juvenile-appellant." }, "file_name": "0107-01", "first_page_order": 139, "last_page_order": 146 }