{ "id": 6777910, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF P.Q.M.", "name_abbreviation": "In re P.Q.M.", "decision_date": "2014-02-18", "docket_number": "No. COA13-899", "first_page": "419", "last_page": "426", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "232 N.C. App. 419" } ], "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": "668 S.E.2d 919", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12642283 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "921", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "921", "parenthetical": "analogizing proof of prior juvenile adjudications with proof of prior criminal convictions" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/668/0919-01" ] }, { "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": "605 S.E.2d 488", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "491-92" }, { "page": "492" }, { "page": "492" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 N.C. App. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8411194 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "310-11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/167/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 169", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11436444 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0586-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16", "parenthetical": "analogizing juvenile petitions with felony indictments" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8918200 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493", "parenthetical": "analogizing juvenile petitions with felony indictments" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 N.C. App. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4162931 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "169", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" }, { "page": "170" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/194/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "567 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "229" }, { "page": "229", "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted" } ], "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" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 894", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "895", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. App. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8915796 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "176", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/162/0175-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-277.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 642, "char_count": 17996, "ocr_confidence": 0.716, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.18226719009486653 }, "sha256": "5bd241d3a72ba169edde9c4396565fe0663c08086327eaaf1e20663abcc7b4a1", "simhash": "1:afdb2c0e356f5ef4", "word_count": 2904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:41.441392+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF P.Q.M." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nJuvenile P.Q.M. (\u201cPaul\u201d) appeals from a disposition order committing him to a youth development center (\u201cYDC\u201d) of the North Carolina Division of Juvenile Justice for a minimum of six months and a maximum term not to exceed his eighteenth birthday. We affirm.\nI. Background\nPaul was adjudicated delinquent on 29 November 2012 in Cleveland County for robbery with a dangerous weapon (\u201cRWDW\u201d), a Class D felony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87 (2011). On 5 January 2012, Paul was adjudicated delinquent for, inter alia, communicating threats pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-277.1 (2011), a Class 1 misdemeanor. On 3 December 2012, Paul was again adjudicated delinquent in Gaston County for, inter alia, larceny of a firearm, a Class H felony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72 (2011). The Cleveland County adjudication for RWDW was transferred to Gaston County and all of Paul\u2019s adjudications were calendared for disposition in Gaston County.\nThe disposition hearing on 4 March 2013 in Gaston County District Court included all three of Paul\u2019s adjudications. The trial court found three delinquency history points, a high delinquency level, that Paul had previously been adjudicated delinquent for two or more felony offenses, and that he had previously been committed to a YDC. Therefore, the trial court entered a Level 3 disposition. On 7 March 2013, the trial court entered an amended Level 3 disposition (\u201cthe amended order\u201d). In both the original and the amended order, the trial court found that Paul\u2019s most serious offense was RWDW. The amended order indicated that Paul had been adjudicated for a violent or serious offense pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508 (2011). In the amended order, the trial court again found, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507(a) (2011), Paul had three delinquency history points: two for the larceny of a firearm offense, and one for the communicating threats offense. The trial court imposed a Level 3 disposition. However, the amended order added Paul\u2019s adjudication for communicating threats on 5 January 2012 and deleted Paul\u2019s 3 December 2012 Breaking and Entering (\u201cB & E\u201d) offense.\nThe trial court amended Paul\u2019s delinquency history level and found that Paul had a medium delinquency level rather than a high delinquency level. The trial court ordered Paul committed to a YDC for a minimum of six months and a maximum term not to exceed his eighteenth birthday. Paul appeals only the amended order. Paul\u2019s adjudications are undisputed.\nII. Standard of Review\nOn appeal, this Court \u201cwill 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 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). \u201cAlthough the trial court has discretion under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2506 [] in determining the proper disposition for a delinquent juvenile, the trial court shall select a disposition that is designed to protect the public and to meet the needs and best interests of the juvenile[.]\u201d In re Ferrell, 162 N.C. App. 175, 176, 589 S.E.2d 894, 895 (2004) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court \u201cshall select the most appropriate disposition both in terms of kind and duration for the delinquent juvenile.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(c) (2011).\nIll Consolidation of Offenses\nPaul argues that the trial court erroneously calculated his prior history level and erred in entering a Level 3 rather than a Level 2 disposition. In addition to the improper calculation, Paul contends the trial court failed to properly consolidate his offenses and also failed to consider his extraordinary needs that warranted a Level 2 rather than a Level 3 disposition. We disagree.\nAfter a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, the level of punishment depends on \u201cthe juvenile\u2019s delinquency history and the type of offense committed.\u201d In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. 733, 737, 567 S.E.2d 227, 229 (2002). The court determines the delinquency history level \u201cby calculating the sum of the points assigned to each of the juvenile\u2019s prior adjudications and to the juvenile\u2019s probation status, if any[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507(a) (2011). \u201cIf a juvenile is adjudicated of more than one offense during a session of juvenile court, the court shall consolidate the offenses ... and impose a single disposition .... The disposition shall be specified for the class of offense and delinquency history level of the most serious offense.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(h) (2011). \u201c\u2018Session\u2019 is not defined within the definitions section of the Juvenile Code, but is defined in case law as that which designates the typical one-week assignment to a particular location during the term.\u201d In re D.R.H., 194 N.C. App. 166, 169, 668 S.E.2d 919, 921 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted).\nIn the instant case, Paul was adjudicated delinquent on three different days in three different calendar weeks in three different sessions. Paul was first adjudicated on 5 January 2012 for communicating threats pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-277.1 (2011), a Class 1 misdemeanor. On Thursday, 29 November 2012, he was adjudicated delinquent for RWDW, a Class D felony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-87 (2011), in Cleveland County, which is in Judicial District 27B. On Monday, 3 December 2012, Paul was adjudicated delinquent for larceny of a firearm, a Class H felony pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-72 (2011), in Gaston County, which is in Judicial District 27A.\nThe trial court clearly transferred Paul\u2019s RWDW adjudication from Cleveland County to Gaston County for disposition. The Cleveland County adjudication order states that \u201c[t]he legal file and disposition are to be transferred to Gaston County.\u201d Merely transferring an adjudication to another county for disposition does not require the court to consolidate offenses that were adjudicated in separate sessions of juvenile court in a disposition. In addition, the order on its face did not require or order the Cleveland County adjudication consolidated with the Gaston County adjudication for disposition. Therefore, the trial court was not required to consolidate the offenses for disposition, and the consolidation requirement of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(h) does not apply.\nIV. Prior Adiudication\nPaul further contends that since his adjudication for larceny of a firearm was on 3 December 2012 and for RWDW was on 29 November 2012, the trial court improperly considered the larceny of a firearm offense as a prior adjudication. Since the Juvenile Code does not provide a definition of \u201cprior adjudication,\u201d we turn to criminal law in order to resolve this procedural issue. This Court has compared and analogized criminal statutes with juvenile statutes to resolve procedural issues. See In re D.R.H., 194 N.C. App. at 170, 668 S.E.2d at 921 (analogizing proof of prior juvenile adjudications with proof of prior criminal convictions); see In re Griffin, 162 N.C. App. 487, 493, 592 S.E.2d 12, 16 (2004) (analogizing juvenile petitions with felony indictments). \u201cA person has a prior conviction when, on the date a criminal judgment is entered, the person being sentenced has been previously convicted of a crime[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1340.11(7) (2011). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1331(b) (2011) (\u201cFor the purpose of imposing sentence, a person has been convicted when he has been adjudged guilty or has entered a plea of guilty or no contest.\u201d).\nIn the instant case, Paul was adjudicated for RWDW on Thursday, 29 November 2012. The following week, on Monday, 3 December 2012, in a different session of court from the prior week, Paul was adjudicated for larceny of a firearm. Although the dispositional hearing for Paul\u2019s offenses was not held until 4 March 2013, the adjudication, which is similar to a conviction, of Paul\u2019s larceny of a firearm offense occurred prior to the 4 March 2013 disposition hearing and entry of the disposition. Therefore, the trial court properly considered Paul\u2019s larceny of a firearm offense as a \u201cprior adjudication\u201d pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507(a) (2011).\nV. Level 3 Disposition\nPaul also argues the trial court erred in ordering a Level 3 disposition when evidence supporting extraordinary needs warranted a Level 2 disposition. We disagree.\n\u201cBased upon the delinquency history level determined pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 7B-2507, and the offense classification for the current offense, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508 then dictates the dispositional limits available.\u201d In re Allison, 143 N.C. App. 586, 597, 547 S.E.2d 169, 176 (2001). When the dispositional chart prescribes a Level 3 disposition, the trial court shall commit the adjudicated juvenile to a YDC. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(e) (2011). \u201cHowever, a court may impose a Level 2 disposition rather than a Level 3 disposition if the court submits written findings on the record that substantiate extraordinary needs on the part of the offending juvenile.\u201d Id. \u201c[Cjhoosing between two appropriate disposi-tional levels is within the trial court\u2019s discretion. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trial court\u2019s choice. An 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 In re Robinson, 151 N.C. App. at 737, 567 S.E.2d at 229 (citation and quotation marks omitted). In choosing a disposition,\nthe court shall select a disposition that is designed to protect the public and to meet the needs and best interests of the juvenile, based upon:\n(1) The seriousness of the offense;\n(2) The need to hold the juvenile accountable;\n(3) The importance of protecting the public safety;\n(4) The degree of culpability indicated by the circumstances of the particular case; and\n(5) The rehabilitative and treatment needs of the juvenile indicated by a risk and needs assessment.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(c) (2011). This Court has previously upheld a Level 3 disposition for a juvenile who had no prior delinquency history, had a low risk of re-offending, and a low needs assessment. In re N.B., 167 N.C. App. 305, 310-11, 605 S.E.2d 488, 491-92 (2004). The juvenile in N.B. had been adjudicated delinquent for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and the trial court had the authority to impose either a Level 2 or Level 3 disposition pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(f). Id. at 311, 605 S.E.2d at 492. This Court held that the juvenile failed to show the trial court\u2019s decision to impose a Level 3 disposition amounted to an abuse of discretion. Id.\nIn the instant case, since Paul was previously adjudicated delinquent, the trial court determined Paul\u2019s delinquency history level to be medium. With a violent offense and a medium delinquency level, a Level 3 disposition is required pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(f) (2011). However, the court had the discretion to impose either a Level 2 disposition with written findings of Paul\u2019s extraordinary needs or a Level 3 disposition. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2508(e) (2011).\nThe trial court heard evidence from several witnesses involved in Paul\u2019s case to determine which level of disposition to impose. Specifically, the court heard evidence from Juvenile Court Counselor Stephania Sarvis (\u201cSarvis\u201d); Dr. Stephen Strezlecki (\u201cDr. Strezlecki\u201d), a psychologist working with juveniles involved with the court system; family therapist Logan Cohen (\u201cCohen\u201d); and mental health professional Rory Barrington (\u201cBarrington\u201d). The court also considered and incorporated by reference a predisposition report, a risk assessment, and a needs assessment. Paul had been evaluated in the assessments as presenting a medium risk and having medium needs.\nAt the disposition hearing, Sarvis testified that Paul was suspended from the alternative school he had been attending when the alternative school was notified of the pending RWDW offense. Sarvis recommended a Level 3 disposition and commitment to a YDC where Paul could resume his schooling immediately, receive individual, group, and family counseling, and remain on any currently prescribed medications. According to Sarvis, the counseling available at the YDC enables juvenile offenders to \u201cunderstand the seriousness of their offense [sic] and they can get a perspective from the victim\u2019s point of view[.]\u201d She also indicated that placement with a YDC would provide Paul with his treatment needs, be rehabilitative, and also provide some measure of protection to public safety.\nDr. Strezlecki performed a psychological evaluation on Paul on 9 January 2013 as part of Paul\u2019s involvement in the juvenile court system. Dr. Strezlecki testified that, based upon \u201ca combination of reviewing [Paul\u2019s] history in terms of involvement with the juvenile court system, as well as behavioral difficulties at school, and also looking at his more recent history\u201d of detention and house arrest, Paul needed a high level of structure. Dr. Strezlecki specifically recommended to the court that Paul should have \u201ca highly structured supervised residential placement,\u201d because it did not appear that Paul could receive the level of structure he needed at home.\nCohen and Barrington both testified on Paul\u2019s behalf regarding the therapeutic services they provided through Support, Incorporated (\u201cSupport\u201d). Cohen had been providing Paul with in-home therapy since November 2012. At the time of the hearing, Cohen was providing Paul with therapy for two hours per day, four days a week. Barrington testified that he and Paul had been participating in volunteer work for a local animal shelter as part of Paul\u2019s therapy. Cohen and Barrington stressed the importance of Paul\u2019s awareness of his behavior and acknowledging accountability for his actions as part of his treatment plan, and both testified to Paul\u2019s positive progress in the Support therapy program. However, while Cohen and Barrington both indicated Paul was making positive progress in the Support program, the risk and needs assessments in the record indicated that Paul presented a medium risk and had medium needs.\nThe court heard and considered the evidence of all the witnesses, as well as the needs and risk assessments. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the court\u2019s failure to find that Paul had extraordinary needs was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision. Just as the juvenile in N.B. with a low risk and low needs assessment failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a Level 3 disposition, here Paul also has failed to show that the trial court\u2019s decision to impose a Level 3 disposition amounted to an abuse of discretion. In re N.B. at 311, 605 S.E.2d at 492.\nVI. Conclusion\nThe trial court heard and considered the evidence presented at the disposition hearing and properly selected a Level 3 disposition based on the seriousness of the offense; the need to hold Paul accountable; the importance of public safety; Paul\u2019s degree of culpability; and Paul\u2019s rehabilitative and treatment needs as indicated by the risk and needs assessments. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2501(c) (2011). In addition, the trial court selected the Level 3 disposition after considering Paul\u2019s rehabilitation and treatment needs and decided the disposition would meet Paul\u2019s best interests. Id. Therefore, the trial court made a reasoned decision and did not abuse its discretion in imposing the Level 3 disposition. We affirm the trial court\u2019s order committing Paul to a YDC for a minimum of six months and a maximum term not to exceed his eighteenth birthday.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and GEER concur.\n. We use this pseudonym to protect the juvenile\u2019s privacy and for ease of reading.\n. Paul\u2019s B & E and larceny of a firearm offenses are both Class H felonies adjudicated in the same session of juvenile court, and pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7B-2507(d) (2011), only one of these offenses could be included in the disposition. (\u201cFor purposes of determining the delinquency history level, if a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent for more than one offense in a single session of district court, only the adjudication for the offense with the highest point total is used.\u201d)", "type": "majority", "author": "CALABRIA, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.", "James N. Freeman, Jr., for juvenile-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF P.Q.M.\nNo. COA13-899\nFiled 18 February 2014\n1. Sentencing \u2014 -juvenile delinquency \u2014 prior history level \u2014 consolidation of offenses \u2014 calculation\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency case when it calculated a juvenile\u2019s prior delinquency history level and in entering a Level 3 rather than a Level 2 disposition. The trial court was not required to consolidate the offenses for disposition, and the consolidation requirement of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2508(h) did not apply.\n2. Juveniles \u2014 delinquency\u2014prior adjudication\nThe trial court did not improperly consider a larceny of a firearm offense as a prior adjudication under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7B-2507(a) in a juvenile delinquency case. Although the dispositional hearing for the offenses was not held until 4 March 2013, the adjudication, which was similar to a conviction, of his larceny of a firearm offense occurred prior to the 4 March 2013 disposition hearing and entry of the disposition.\n3. Sentencing \u2014 juvenile delinquency \u2014 Level 3 disposition\u2014 extraordinary needs \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not err in a juvenile delinquency case by ordering a Level 3 disposition even though the juvenile contended that the evidence supporting extraordinary needs warranted a Level 2 disposition. The juvenile failed to show that the trial court\u2019s decision to impose a Level 3 disposition amounted to an abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by juvenile from order entered 7 March 2013 by Judge Ralph C. Gingles in Gaston County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 January 2014.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Gerald K. Robbins, for the State.\nJames N. Freeman, Jr., for juvenile-appellant." }, "file_name": "0419-01", "first_page_order": 429, "last_page_order": 436 }