IN THE MATTER OF: PAUL JONAS ROBINSON
Donna B. Stepp, attorney for respondent-appellant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Lisa Granberry Corbett,
Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
THOMAS, Judge.
Juvenile respondent, Paul Jonas Robinson, was adjudicated
delinquent after admitting to the following offenses: (1) assault
with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury;
(2) robbery with a dangerous weapon; and (3) felonious larceny. He
was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (the Department) for a period not to exceed his
nineteenth birthday.
The juvenile appeals, contending the trial court erred: (1)
in finding him capable of proceeding; and (2) by committing him to
the Department. Based on the reasons herein, we affirm.
The State's evidence tends to show the following: On 7
February 2000, the fourteen-year-old juvenile shot his mother with
a .12 gauge shotgun through the bathroom door at home. She was hit
in the right arm and chest, resulting in serious injuries. The
juvenile then took $20.00 from her and drove his father's car toSouth Carolina before finally wrecking.
The juvenile was taken into custody and returned to North
Carolina. During questioning by Union County Sheriff's Department
Detective Robert Rollins, the juvenile said “the devil” made him
shoot his mother. He further claimed the shotgun he used was
similar to Detective Rollins's handgun, and that after the shooting
he threw the weapon into the water behind his home.
At the juvenile's first appearance, his counsel moved to
commit him to Dorothea Dix Hospital for an examination to determine
capacity to proceed. Doctors Manuel Versola, M.D., and Tricia
Hahn, Ph.D., L.P., conducted exams and concluded that the juvenile
suffered from no mental illness or retardation. They found him
capable of proceeding. The juvenile then applied for and received
an evaluation by a private psychologist, Dr. Frank Gaskill, Ph.D.
Gaskill determined that the juvenile suffers from moderate mental
retardation and schizophreniform disorder. As a result, Gaskill
found him incapable of proceeding.
At a subsequent hearing, the trial court ruled that due to
conflicting testimonies it could not make a determination as to
capacity to proceed. The trial court then ordered an evaluation by
Dr. Robert Rollins, M.D., Chief of Forensic Psychiatry at Dorothea
Dix. Rollins found the juvenile capable of proceeding to trial.
He based his evaluation on interviews with the juvenile and a
review of the evaluations by Gaskill and Versola, a state employee
at Dorothea Dix under Rollins's supervision.
The trial court concluded that the juvenile was competent toproceed in that the juvenile was able to understand the nature of
the proceedings and to assist his attorney. There is no indication
in the record of a probable cause hearing, a waiver of probable
cause, or a transfer hearing in accordance with Article 22 of the
Juvenile Code. There is a Transcript of Plea, however, with the
juvenile entering admissions to the offenses and expressly
reserving the right to appeal the issue of competency. The trial
court then adjudicated the juvenile delinquent.
At the dispositional hearing, assessments by a juvenile court
counselor indicated a medium risk of re-offending with the
juvenile's needs level being high. The trial court found the
juvenile to be at a Level 2 or Level 3 Disposition under N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-2508 (2001), and ordered a Level 3 Disposition. He was
committed to the Department for a term not to exceed his nineteenth
birthday.
By his first assignment of error, the juvenile contends the
trial court erred in finding him capable of proceeding. We
disagree.
Section 7B-2401 of the North Carolina Juvenile Codes states
that the provisions of sections 15A-1001 to 15A-1003 apply to all
cases in which a juvenile is alleged to be delinquent. N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-2401 (2001). Sections 15A-1001 to 15A-1003 of the North
Carolina Criminal Procedure Act relate to a defendant's capacity to
proceed. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1001 to 15A-1003 (2001). Under
section 15A-1001:
(a) No person may be tried, convicted,
sentenced, or punished for a crime when byreason of mental illness or defect he is
unable to understand the nature and object of
the proceedings against him, to comprehend his
own situation in reference to the proceedings,
or to assist in his defense in a rational or
reasonable manner.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001. Under section 15A-1002, the issue of
capacity is within the trial court's discretion, and “[the]
determination thereof, if supported by the evidence, is conclusive
on appeal.” State v. Reid, 38 N.C. App. 547, 548-49, 248 S.E.2d
390, 391 (1978), disc. review denied, 296 N.C. 588, 254 S.E.2d 31
(1979).
The juvenile's primary contention is that the method used by
the trial court in determining capacity constituted error. Rather
than appoint Rollins to conduct a third evaluation, the juvenile
argues, the trial court should have appointed an independent
psychiatrist with no affiliation to either Versola or Gaskill. The
juvenile maintains that Rollins's report was unreliable and biased
because the conclusions in it were based in part on information
previously gathered by Versola, one of his employees.
In his evaluation, Rollins sets forth the following bases for
his opinions: (1) interviews with the patient; (2) observation of
ward behavior; (3) routine laboratory and medical studies; (4)
review of Versola's evaluation; (5) review of Gaskill's evaluation;
(6) repeat psychological testing; and (7) contact with the
juvenile's attorney and court counselor. We find no merit to the
juvenile's contention that Rollins's evaluation was inherently
unreliable or biased. The evidence presented by the State was
sufficient to support the trial court's finding. Accordingly, wereject this assignment of error.
By his second assignment of error, the juvenile contends the
trial court erred in committing him to the Department. We
disagree.
Juvenile dispositions in delinquency proceedings are
controlled by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2500 et seq. For offenses
occurring on or after 1 July 1999, courts are no longer bound by
the language of former N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-646 (1998). Under the
new Code, the directives found in former section 7A-646 that the
trial court “select the least restrictive disposition” which is
appropriate and that “[a] juvenile should not be committed to
training school or to any other institution if he can be helped
through community-level resources” have been deleted. See N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-2501(c) (2001). The trial court is now required to
“select the most appropriate disposition,” one that is designed to
“protect the public and to meet the needs and best interests of the
juvenile,” based on a list of enumerated factors. Id. A textual
analysis shows a more balanced statutory design emphasizing
appropriate dispositions, with some limitations, rather than what
had been interpreted as a mandate for the least restrictive
alternative under the circumstances. See In re Bullabough, 89 N.C.
App. 171, 185-86, 365 S.E.2d 642, 650 (1988).
Upon an adjudication of delinquency, a juvenile now is placed
in a level of punishment, 1, 2, or 3, depending on the juvenile's
delinquency history and the type of offense committed. Here, the
juvenile was found delinquent for two offenses classified asviolent, and one classified as serious. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-
2508(a) (2001). He has a “low” delinquency history level. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2507 (2001). Accordingly, under section 7B-
2508(f), the disposition may be at either Level 2 or Level 3. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-2508(f) (2001). Level 2 is an intermediate
disposition, primarily community based, while Level 3 carries a
commitment to the Department. Id.
Once a juvenile is placed in a dispositional level, the
statutes provide dispositional alternatives which may be utilized
by the trial court. However, in those instances where there is a
choice of level, there are no specific guidelines solely directed
at resolving that issue. Accordingly, choosing between two
appropriate dispositional levels is within the trial court's
discretion. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the
trial court's choice. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the
trial court's ruling 'is so arbitrary that it could not have been
the result of a reasoned decision.'” Chicora Country Club, Inc. v.
Town of Erwin, 128 N.C. App. 101, 109, 493 S.E.2d 797, 802 (1997),
disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 670, 500 S.E.2d 84 (1998) (quoting
White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)).
There are overall guidelines for the trial court within the
Juvenile Code, however, including but not limited to, section 7B-
2501(c) as well as section 7B-2500, titled “Purpose,” which
provides:
The purpose of dispositions in juvenile
actions is to design an appropriate plan to
meet the needs of the juvenile and to achieve
the objectives of the State in exercisingjurisdiction, including the protection of the
public. The court should develop a disposition
in each case that:
(1) Promotes public safety;
(2) Emphasizes accountability and
responsibility of both the parent, guardian,
or custodian and the juvenile for the
juvenile's conduct; and
(3) Provides the appropriate consequences,
treatment, training, and rehabilitation to
assist the juvenile toward becoming a
nonoffending, responsible, and productive
member of the community.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2500 (2001).
The trial court here had before it both a risk of future
offending assessment and a needs assessment. The record reveals
the juvenile's risk level of future offending, 14, is at the top of
the medium risk range. His total needs score was 23, the bottom of
the high range. Further, the trial court found that: “Given the
severity of the case, the lack of progress thus far, and the
alternatives that appear to be available here in the community,
[the] Court finds it is in the juvenile's best interest” to be
committed. The trial court's order for a Level 3 disposition is
the result of a reasoned decision. Accordingly, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion and we reject this assignment of
error.
AFFIRMED.
JUDGES MARTIN and TYSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***