{
  "id": 6815762,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF K.H.",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re K.H.",
  "decision_date": "2013-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-1253",
  "first_page": "448",
  "last_page": "452",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "226 N.C. App. 448"
    }
  ],
  "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": "622 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634508,
        12634509
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/622/0495-01",
        "/se2d/622/0495-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "616 S.E.2d 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633567
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "387",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/616/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "533 S.E.2d 168",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "202",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 N.C. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        684963
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "411",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/352/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 652",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "659",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4689817
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "39",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "547 S.E.2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "147",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11437254
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "713",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0712-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 165",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3791922
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0165-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. App. 747",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8321394
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "751",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/172/0747-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 453,
    "char_count": 9706,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3475318445206651
    },
    "sha256": "71c8516f77acc33b4afd2c07fe09120055264a4cd3599b62f50b220b62c76f3b",
    "simhash": "1:9fabf131da6e0a70",
    "word_count": 1529
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:05:47.059681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge STEPHENS and Judge STROUD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF K.H."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DILLON, Judge.\nThe juvenile, E.K.H. (Respondent), appeals from a level three dispo-sitional order placing Respondent in a youth development center, challenging the failure of the trial court to receive and consider Respondent\u2019s risk and needs assessments as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 (2011). We conclude the trial court erred. However, as Respondent has failed to carry his burden of showing any prejudice by the error, we affirm the dispositional order of the trial court.\nThe evidence of record tends to show the following: On 27 November 2011, four individuals, including Respondent, entered the home of Ernesto Perez (Perez) without permission and demanded money from Perez. At the time, Respondent was on probation.\nOn 23 January 2012, Respondent entered an admission to the charge of common law robbery. Hearings were held on 23 January 2012 and 6 March 2012. At the second hearing, the trial court ordered that Respondent be committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice for placement in a youth development center for an indefinite commitment not to exceed his eighteenth birthday, a level three disposition. From this dispositional order, Respondent appeals.\nI: Risk and Needs Assessment\nRespondent\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by entering a dispositional order without receiving or considering the risk and needs assessments, or in the alternative, without making findings of fact that the risk and needs assessments were not necessary in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413. While we agree that the trial court erred by entering a dispositional order without receiving or considering the risk and needs assessments, we conclude that Respondent was not prejudiced by the error.\n\u201cOn appeal, we will not disturb a trial court\u2019s ruling regarding a juvenile\u2019s disposition absent an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the trial court\u2019s ruling is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d In re J.B., 172 N.C. App. 747, 751, 616 S.E.2d 385, 387, aff\u2019d, 360 N.C. 165, 622 S.E.2d 495 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 (2011), provides the following:\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. In cases where no predisposition report is available and the court makes a written finding that a report is not needed, the court may proceed with the dispositional hearing....\nId. \u201cThis Court has held that use of the language \u2018shall\u2019 is a mandate to trial judges!.]\u201d In re Eades, 143 N.C. App. 712, 713, 547 S.E.2d 146, 147 (2001) (citations omitted).\nAs a preliminary matter, we note that Respondent did not object to the lack of the risk and needs assessments at the disposition hearing. \u201cAs a general rule, [a] defendant\u2019s failure to object to alleged errors by the trial court operates to preclude raising the error on appeal.\u201d State v. Ashe, 314 N.C. 28, 39, 331 S.E.2d 652, 659 (1985) (citations omitted). However, \u201c[w]hen a trial court acts contrary to a statutory mandate, the right to appeal the court\u2019s action is preserved, notwithstanding the failure of the appealing party to object at trial.\u201d State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. 364, 411, 533 S.E.2d 168, 202 (2000) (quotation marks omitted).\nIn the case sub judice, the court received and considered the predisposition report. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413. However, neither the risk assessment nor the needs assessment was attached to the predisposition report. The disposition and commitment order further reflects that while the trial court \u201creceived and considered\u201d the predisposition report, it neither received nor considered the risk and needs assessments. There is no other indication in the record that the trial court either received or considered the risk and needs assessments. The trial court, therefore, violated N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413, which mandates that the risk and needs assessments \u201cshall be conducted for the juvenile and shall be attached to the predisposition report[,]\u201d when it entered a dispositional order without receiving or considering the risk and needs assessments. Id. (emphasis added).\nNot every statutory violation, however, is grounds for reversal. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1443 (2011), Respondent is prejudiced by errors other than constitutional errors \u201cwhen there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.\u201d Id. \u201cThe burden of showing such prejudice under this subsection is upon the [respondent].\u201d Id.\nIn the case sub judice, although Respondent argues in his brief that \u201cthe trial court committed reversible error by conducting his dis-positional hearing without receiving a risk and needs assessment and without making the required findings of fact that such a report was not necessary pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413,\u201d Respondent fails to articulate any specific prejudice from the trial court\u2019s conducting the disposition hearing without the benefit of the risk and needs assessments. Moreover, a report by Sherri McGruder (McGruder), of the Department of Juvenile Justice, was received and considered by the trial court in this case. It is not clear in the record on appeal whether this report was the \u201cpredisposition report[.]\u201d See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413. However, the report states, \u201c[t]o be used for [disposition [p]urposes [o]nly,\u201d and the report contains much of the information contemplated by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413. The report includes information regarding Respondent\u2019s court history, which consists of thirteen total offenses, nine of which were dismissed, three of which were adjudicated, and one - the common law robbery offense that is the subject of the dispositional order in the case sub judice - which the report notates, \u201c[p]ending.\u201d The report contains additional information regarding Respondent\u2019s \u201csocial, medical, psychiatric, psychological, and educational history[,]\u201d see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413, including Respondent\u2019s psychiatric diagnoses and prescriptions, Respondent\u2019s behavior in his home, Respondent\u2019s behavior at school, Respondent\u2019s involvement in a neighborhood gang called the \u201cPirn Crips\u201d Bloods, and Respondent\u2019s suspensions from school for \u201cusing profanity towards his teacher and walking out of class[,]\u201d and for \u201ctripping a young lady[.]\u201d The report also contains some indication of \u201cthe probability of the juvenile committing further delinquent acts[,]\u201d see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413, including a social worker\u2019s comment that \u201c[d]uring the time that I have worked with [Respondent,] his charges have become more serious and dangerous [,]\u201d and \u201c[h]e is a danger to himself and the community[,]\u201d and Respondent\u2019s mother\u2019s \u201cfeel[ing] that once [Respondent] is kicked out of placement^] he will be back home doing the same things.\u201d\nIn light of the information that is contained in the record in this case in McGruder\u2019s report, and in light of the complete absence of any argument by Respondent in his brief as to how the lack of the risk and needs assessments has prejudiced him, we hold that the trial court\u2019s error - entering a dispositional order without first receiving and considering risk and needs assessments - was harmless.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudge STEPHENS and Judge STROUD concur.\n. The transcript reveals that Respondent \u201cand his mother did complete the comprehensive clinical assessment!,]\u201d and \u201c[t]he recommendations from the assessment were that [Respondent]... be placed out of home.\u201d However, the transcript is otherwise silent with regard to any risk or needs assessments.\n. We note that the trial court did not malee a finding of fact that the risk and needs assessments were not necessary- However, because we conclude that Respondent has failed to show any prejudice by the trial court\u2019s failure to receive and consider the risk and needs assessments, we do not reach the question of whether the trial court\u2019s failure to make findings of fact was error. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 mandates that the risk and needs assessments \u201cshall he conducted for the juvenile and shall be attached to the predisposition report[J\" andN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 further requires that \u201c[i]n cases where no predisposition report is available and the court makes a written finding that a report is not needed, the court may proceed with the dispositional hearing[.]\u201d Id. (emphasis added). However, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2413 is silent as to any requirement for findings of fact with regard to an unavailability of the risk and needs assessments. The statute only mandates that the assessments be \u201cconducted\u201d and \u201cattached[.]\u201d Id. (emphasis added).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DILLON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Josephine N. Tetteh, for the State.",
      "Jon W. Myers, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF K.H.\nNo. COA12-1253\nFiled 16 April 2013\nJuveniles \u2014 delinquency\u2014dispositional order \u2014 failure to consider risk and needs assessment\u2014 harmless error\nAlthough the trial court erred in a juvenile delinquency case by entering a disposition order without receiving or considering the risk and needs assessments, respondent juvenile failed to show prejudice caused by the error.\nAppeal by Respondent from order entered 13 March 2012 by Judge Regan A. Miller in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 February 2013.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Josephine N. Tetteh, for the State.\nJon W. Myers, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0448-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 462
}
