{
  "id": 4159179,
  "name": "IN RE: D.C.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re D.C.",
  "decision_date": "2008-07-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA07-1186",
  "first_page": "246",
  "last_page": "249",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 N.C. App. 246"
    }
  ],
  "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": "232 S.E.2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "487-88",
          "parenthetical": "stating that an admission by a juvenile \"is the equivalent to a plea of guilty by an adult in a criminal prosecution.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551698
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "493",
          "parenthetical": "stating that an admission by a juvenile \"is the equivalent to a plea of guilty by an adult in a criminal prosecution.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0492-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "451 S.E.2d 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "273"
        },
        {
          "page": "273"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 N.C. 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2558515
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/339/0441-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "614 S.E.2d 296",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633109
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Meyers, 25 N.C. App. 555, 558, 214 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1975)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/614/0296-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 S.E.2d 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "270"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555283
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "558"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3803150
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Meyers, 25 N.C. App. 555, 558, 214 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1975)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "604 S.E.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "350",
          "parenthetical": "alteration in original"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8410585
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "4",
          "parenthetical": "alteration in original"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/167/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 S.E.2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "487-88"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 492",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551698
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "493"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0492-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 7645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.735,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13555520032248985
    },
    "sha256": "fed98aaa4dffb06b8b9ae77142baa490a9b2d9e73a0d62aeaea726477a779c78",
    "simhash": "1:29689669363c3656",
    "word_count": 1249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:44:10.260573+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge BRYANT concurs.",
      "Judge JACKSON concurs in the result only by separate opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN RE: D.C."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2407(c) (2005), a \u201ccourt may accept an admission from a juvenile only after determining that there is a factual basis for the admission.\u201d Here, the Juvenile argues that the State failed to provide sufficient information to establish a factual basis for his admission of guilt to felony larceny and attempted felony larceny of a vehicle valued at more than $1,000. Because the State failed to provide information in accordance with \u00a7 7B-2407 to establish that the stolen vehicle was valued at more than $1,000, we must vacate the Juvenile\u2019s admission.\nThe Juvenile in this matter does not dispute that he stole a pickup truck; instead, the only issue on appeal is whether the State followed the mandate of section 7B-2407(c) to establish a factual basis for admitting the Juvenile\u2019s plea. Under section 7B-2407(c), a \u201ccourt may accept an admission only after determining that there is a factual basis for the admission.\u201d Id. \u00a7 7B-2407(c). Significant to this appeal, that section further provides that: \u201cThis determination may be based upon any of the following information: a statement of the facts by the prosecutor; a written statement of the juvenile; sworn testimony which may include reliable hearsay; or a statement of facts by the juvenile\u2019s attorney.\u201d Id.\nHere, the Juvenile offered an admission of guilt to the crimes of felony larceny and attempted felony larceny, which require proof that the stolen goods were valued at more than $1,000. Id. \u00a7 14-72(a). The trial court then adjudicated the Juvenile delinquent and entered a disposition and commitment order committing him to a youth development center for an indefinite commitment not to exceed his eighteenth birthday. Under section 7B-2407(c), the State was required to establish a factual basis that the truck was valued at more than $1,000 by providing \u201ca statement of the facts by the prosecutor; a written statement of the juvenile; sworn testimony which may include reliable hearsay; or a statement of facts by the juvenile\u2019s attorney.\u201d Id. \u00a7 7B-2407(c); see also id. \u00a7 14-72(a).\nHowever, the prosecutor\u2019s statement of facts does not contain any statement or evidence that the pickup truck was worth more than $1,000. Moreover, the record includes no \u201cwritten statement of the juvenile; sworn testimony ... or a statement of facts by the juvenile\u2019s attorney\u201d that indicates that the truck was valued at more than $1,000. Indeed, while the juvenile petition lists the value of the pickup truck as $5,000, the statute does not provide that a juvenile petition may serve as information for determining that there is a factual basis for admitting a juvenile\u2019s plea.\nSince the State failed to provide information in compliance with section 7B-2407 to establish a factual basis for admitting the Juvenile\u2019s plea, we must vacate the Juvenile\u2019s admission of guilt in this matter. In vacating the Juvenile\u2019s admission, we are guided by our Supreme Court\u2019s decision in State v. Weathers. 339 N.C. 441, 451 S.E.2d 266 (1994). In Weathers, the Supreme Court held that the trial court failed to comply with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1022(c) in determining there was a factual basis for defendant\u2019s guilty plea. Id. at 453, 451 S.E.2d at 273; see also In re Johnson, 32 N.C. App. 492, 493, 232 S.E.2d 486, 487-88 (1977) (stating that an admission by a juvenile \u201cis the equivalent to a plea of guilty by an adult in a criminal prosecution.\u201d). Instructively, our Supreme Court stated: \u201cThere was no factual basis for defendant\u2019s guilty plea to the charge of failure to appear for trial; thus, it was error for the trial court to accept defendant\u2019s guilty plea. The guilty plea and the judgment based thereon are hereby vacated.\u201d Weathers, 339 N.C. at 453, 451 S.E.2d at 273. Following Weathers, we vacate the Juvenile\u2019s admission to felony larceny and the disposition and commitment order based thereon.\nVacated.\nJudge BRYANT concurs.\nJudge JACKSON concurs in the result only by separate opinion.\n. The State\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "JACKSON, J.,\nconcurring.\nAlthough I concur with the result reached by the majority opinion, I write separately to clarify my analysis in reaching this conclusion.\nThe majority is correct that an admission in a juvenile delinquency case is equivalent to a plea of guilty by an adult in a criminal prosecution. In re Johnson, 32 N.C. App. 492, 493, 232 S.E.2d 486, 487-88 (1977). However, \u201cin a juvenile proceeding, as opposed to an adult criminal proceeding, \u2018the burden upon the State to see that the child\u2019s rights [are] protected\u2019 is increased rather than decreased.\u201d In re T.E.F., 167 N.C. App. 1, 4, 604 S.E.2d 348, 350 (2004) (alteration in original), aff\u2019d, 359 N.C. 570, 614 S.E.2d 296 (2005) (quoting In re Meyers, 25 N.C. App. 555, 558, 214 S.E.2d 268, 270 (1975)).\nNorth Carolina General Statutes, section 15A-1022 \u2014 governing guilty pleas \u2014 and section 7B-2407 \u2014 governing juvenile admissions\u2014 are almost identical. However, with respect to what may be considered in determining the factual basis of the plea or admission, section 15A-1022 provides that \u201c[t]his determination may be based upon information including but not limited to\u201d (1) the prosecutor\u2019s statement of the facts; (2) the defendant\u2019s written statement; (3) the presentence report; (4) sworn testimony, including reliable hearsay; and (5) defense counsel\u2019s statement of facts. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1022(c) (2007) (emphasis added). In contrast, section 7B-2407 states that \u201c[t]his determination may be based upon any of the following information:\" (1) the prosecutor\u2019s statement of the facts; (2) the juvenile\u2019s written statement; (3) sworn testimony, including reliable hearsay; and (4) a statement of facts by the juvenile\u2019s attorney. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2407(c) (2007) (emphasis added). Section 15A-1022 is an inclusive list which could permit the use of the indictment to establish the factual basis supporting a guilty plea. In contrast, section 7B-2407 is an exclusive list which does not include the use of the petition to establish the factual basis supporting a juvenile admission.\nJust as there was no factual basis for the guilty plea in Weathers, cited by the majority, there was no factual basis for the juvenile\u2019s admission in the case sub judice. Therefore, I concur in vacating the admission.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "JACKSON, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Tracy J. Hayes, for the State.",
      "Russell J. Hollers, III, for defendant-juvenile."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN RE: D.C.\nNo. COA07-1186\n(Filed 1 July 2008)\nJuveniles\u2014 delinquency \u2014 admission of guilt \u2014 factual basis required\nThe trial court erred in a juvenile delinquency case arising out of felony larceny and attempted felony larceny of a vehicle by accepting a juvenile\u2019s admission of guilt because: (1) the State failed to follow the mandate of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2407(c) to establish a factual basis for admitting a juvenile\u2019s plea; (2) the prosecutor\u2019s statement of facts does not contain any statement or evidence that the pertinent pickup truck was worth more than $1,000, nor did the record include a written statement of the juvenile, sworn testimony, or a statement by the juvenile\u2019s attorney that the truck was valued at more than $1,000; and (3) while the juvenile petition lists the value of the pickup truck as $5,000, the statute does not provide that a juvenile petition may serve as information for determining that there is a factual basis for admitting a juvenile\u2019s plea.\nJudge JACKSON concurring.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 4 June 2007 by Judge Hugh Lewis in District Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 March 2008.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Tracy J. Hayes, for the State.\nRussell J. Hollers, III, for defendant-juvenile."
  },
  "file_name": "0246-01",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 281
}