IN THE MATTER OF: Mecklenburg County &nb
sp;
No. 96-J-623-YME
LAMONT ORLANDO MAYHEW
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann
Stone, for the State.
David Childers for defendant-appellant.
WALKER, Judge.
On 7 December 1999, District Court Judge Yvonne Mims Evans
ordered that the juvenile be committed to the Division of Youth
Services for an indefinite period not to exceed 120 days. On 5
April 2000, Judge Evans closed the juvenile's case and released him
from further jurisdiction of the Court because he had reached
Maximum Release Date.
On 27 December 2000, a juvenile petition alleging simple
assault was filed against the juvenile for an event occurring on 11
October 2000, one day before he reached 16 years of age. On 7
March 2001, he was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation
with conditions. On 22 August 2001, upon a motion to review, the
juvenile was committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice for anindefinite period not to exceed six months. The juvenile appeals
from this order.
On 14 February 2001, in the intervening period between the
time the petition alleging simple assault was filed and the
juvenile's adjudication as a delinquent, the juvenile was tried and
convicted as an adult of communicating threats made on 17 November
2000. He was sentenced as an adult to supervised probation.
The juvenile contends the juvenile court erred in committing
him to the Department of Juvenile Justice. Specifically, he argues
the court erred because (1) he had been released from custody of
the juvenile court, (2) he had reached 16 years of age and (3) he
had been sentenced as an adult in district court before the order
of the juvenile court was entered; therefore, the juvenile court
lacks jurisdiction over him.
First, the juvenile contends that, because he had reached 16
years of age and had been released from the juvenile court upon
reaching Maximum Release Date, the juvenile court could no longer
exercise jurisdiction over him. A juvenile court has exclusive,
original jurisdiction over a juvenile alleged to be delinquent for
acts committed before reaching 16 years of age, and that
jurisdiction continues until terminated by order of the court or
until the juvenile reaches the age of 18 years.... N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§ 7B-1601(a), (b)(2001). Where a juvenile's case is closed
and he is released from further jurisdiction of the juvenile court
because he has reached the Maximum Release Date for that specific
matter, the release relates only to that case and does not bar thecourt's exercise of jurisdiction over him in other actions for acts
committed after the date of release but before he reaches 16 years
of age.
Concerning the juvenile's second argument, N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-1601(a) states that the district court has exclusive, original
jurisdiction over any case involving a juvenile who is alleged to
be delinquent. For purposes of determining jurisdiction, the age
of the juvenile at the time of the alleged offense governs. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-1601(a)(2001); see State v. Dellinger, 343 N.C. 93,
468 S.E.2d 218 (1996). A delinquent juvenile is defined as any
juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at least 6 years
of age, commits a crime or infraction under State law or under an
ordinance of local government, including violation of the motor
vehicle laws. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1501(7)(2001). Because the
offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent and now
appeals occurred on 11 October 2000, when he was 15 years of age,
he was properly before the juvenile court.
Lastly, while the juvenile correctly argues that N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 7B-1604(a)(2001) provides that a juvenile who reaches 16
years of age before committing the offense charged may be subject
to prosecution as an adult, he fails to consider the fact that the
juvenile court still has jurisdiction over an offense which
occurred before he reached 16 years of age. As the age of the
juvenile at the time of the offense governs jurisdiction, he was
not subject to prosecution as an adult for the offense charged but
was only subject to the juvenile court's jurisdiction. Therefore,the juvenile court did not err in exercising jurisdiction over the
juvenile.
Affirmed.
Judges THOMAS and BIGGS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***