Appeal by respondent-appellant from order filed 6 March 2001
by Judge Marcia H. Morey in Durham County District Court. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 16 April 2002.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
John P. Barkley, for the State.
County Attorney S.C. Kitchen, by Deputy Durham County Attorney
Lowell L. Siler and Assistant Durham County Attorneys Curtis
O. Massey, II, and Lucy Chavis, for respondent-appellant,
Durham County.
Public Defender Robert Brown, Jr., by Assistant Public
Defender Lori D. Mahmoud, for respondent-appellee, juvenile.
GREENE, Judge.
Durham County (the County) appeals a juvenile order filed 6
March 2001 ordering it to pay the costs of Cody Gurley's (Gurley)
residential treatment at Evy's Group Care.
Gurley was adjudicated delinquent on 12 May 1998 for two
counts of crimes against nature and two counts of first-degree
sexual offenses. Gurley was subsequently adjudicated delinquent on
5 December 2000 for breaking and entering and larceny. Thereafter,
on 6 March 2001, the trial court determined Gurley was in need of
therapy due to his mental diagnosis. After finding Gurley's familyhad “not been involved in anything,” the trial court ordered the
County to “be responsible for the cost of pay[ing] for [Gurley's]
residential treatment at Evy's Group Care.”
On 2 April 2001, the County filed its notice of appeal and on
29 June 2001, filed a petition for writ of certiorari.
________________________________
The dispositive issue is whether this Court has the right to
grant a writ of certiorari and review the trial court's order in
this case.
A trial court may order a county “to arrange for evaluation or
treatment of [a] juvenile and to pay for the cost of the evaluation
or treatment.” N.C.G.S. § 7B-2502(b) (1999). While a county must
be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order to
pay costs can be issued,
id., a county does not have a “statutory
right to appeal in a juvenile proceeding in this state,”
In re
Voight, 138 N.C. App. 542, 545, 530 S.E.2d 76, 78,
disc.
review
denied,
cert.
denied,
and remedial writ denied, 352 N.C. 674, 545
S.E.2d 728 (2000);
In re Wharton, 305 N.C. 565, 569, 290 S.E.2d
688, 690 (1982);
In re Brownlee, 301 N.C. 532, 547, 272 S.E.2d 861,
870 (1981). Although
Brownlee and
Wharton held that a county does
not have a right to appeal in a juvenile delinquency action, our
Supreme Court exercised its power under the N.C. Constitution,
Article IV, Section 12(1) and issued a remedial writ to hear the
appeals.
Voight, 138 N.C. App. at 545, 530 S.E.2d at 78. While
“this Court does not have the power to issue a remedial writ under
our Constitution, . . . we do have the power to issue certainprerogative writs under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-32 (1999).”
Id. One
of these prerogative writs is certiorari. N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(c)
(1999). This Court has authority to issue a writ of certiorari
only
in appropriate circumstances . . . to permit
review of the judgments and orders of trial
tribunals when the right to prosecute an
appeal has been lost by failure to take timely
action, or when no right of appeal from an
interlocutory order exists, or for review
pursuant to G.S. 15A-1422(c)(3) of an order of
the trial court denying a motion for
appropriate relief.
N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1).
In this case, the County has not failed to take timely action,
is not attempting to appeal from an interlocutory order, and is not
seeking review pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1422(c)(3). Thus,
this Court does not have the authority to issue a writ of
certiorari pursuant to Rule 21(a)(1). Accordingly, because the
County does not have a right to appeal and this Court is without
authority to issue remedial writs or grant a writ of certiorari
under the circumstances of this case, the County's appeal is
dismissed.
Dismissed.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUNTER concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***