{
  "id": 8550626,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH MAURICE SAMUELS",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Samuels",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7826DC124",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "73",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 71"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3446,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "sha256": "7e8187939c31ecfd2551cf70cdb35579070490ef39d030bec4f4afa127e1bc06",
    "simhash": "1:a114335d4756b12a",
    "word_count": 536
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH MAURICE SAMUELS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nIn the only assignment of error brought forward, defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to defer his disposition pending receipt of further information. He argues that G.S. 7A-285 contemplates the separation of the adjudicatory and dispositional phases of juvenile cases for the very purpose of allowing the court to secure such information as is necessary \u201cto develop a disposition related to the needs of the child. . . .\u201d While we agree that G.S. 7A-285 does allow the court, in its discretion, to continue a juvenile case pending receipt of pertinent information, we cannot find any abuse of discretion in the court\u2019s refusal to defer disposition in the instant case. In fact, the court initially set out to defer disposition of defendant\u2019s case and had announced the conditions of defendant\u2019s probation. It was at this point that defendant openly informed the court that he would not comply with these conditions. The court\u2019s ensuing entry of disposition committing defendant to training school was proper under the circumstances of this case.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ann Reed, for the State.",
      "Assistant Public Defender Ann C. Villier, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF KENNETH MAURICE SAMUELS\nNo. 7826DC124\n(Filed 20 June 1978)\nInfants \u00a7 20\u2014 juvenile delinquent \u2014 disposition of case not deferred \u2014 no error\nWhere the trial court adjudicated the juvenile defendant delinquent but initially deferred disposition pending receipt of a social summary from a court counselor and announced the conditions of defendant\u2019s probation, whereupon defendant openly informed the court that he would not comply with those conditions, the court\u2019s ensuing entry of disposition committing defendant to training school was proper.\nAPPEAL by juvenile from Lanning, Judge. Judgment entered 21 September 1977 in District Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 May 1978.\nDefendant was charged in a juvenile petition with being a delinquent child, as defined by G.S. 7A-278\u00cd2), for the reason that he unlawfully and wilfully attempted to break and enter a certain building in Charlotte on or about 30 June 1977. At the hearing, the State amended the petition to allege misdemeanor breaking. The juvenile defendant, through counsel, indicated that he wished to admit guilt of the charges included in the amended petition. After the court thoroughly advised the juvenile defendant of the consequences of his admission, the defendant did, of his own free will, admit the charge.\nThe court then received an unsworn statement of facts from a State\u2019s witness and, based upon such testimony and the defendant\u2019s admission, found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did in fact commit the offense as charged.\nThe court adjudicated the juvenile defendant delinquent but initially deferred disposition, placing defendant on probation pending receipt of a social summary from a court counselor. As a condition of his probation, defendant was to reside with his mother and obey her rules and regulations. At this point, defendant informed the court that he was living with his thirty-one (31) year old girl friend and would not return home. The court then struck the probation, proceeded with defendant\u2019s disposition and committed him to training school. The court denied counsel\u2019s request to defer disposition. Juvenile defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Ann Reed, for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender Ann C. Villier, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 101
}
