An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA03-321

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 18 May 2004

IN THE MATTER OF:                    Mecklenburg County
C.C.                                No. 1999 J 903

    

    Appeal by juvenile from order entered 24 September 2002 by Judge Yvonne M. Evans in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 April 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General LaShawn L. Strange, for the State.

    Haakon Thorsen for respondent appellant.

    TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

    Upon her admission to the allegation of simple assault as alleged in a petition filed 3 July 2002, C.C. (“juvenile”) was adjudicated delinquent by the Honorable Mark S. Culler in Davie County District Court on 9 July 2002. The case was transferred to Mecklenburg County for disposition. By order entered 24 September 2002, the Honorable Yvonne M. Evans placed juvenile on supervised probation for a period of twelve months.
    In her lone argument on appeal, juvenile claims the trial court committed plain error in accepting her admission to simple assault at the 9 July 2002 adjudication hearing.     The transcript records the following exchange between the court and the juvenile at the hearing:        THE COURT: Did [your counsel] explain the charges to you?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you understand the nature of the charges?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you understand every element of the charge?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Did you and your lawyer get a chance to talk about any possible defenses to the charge? Did y'all talk about whether or not you could get out of it?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Are you satisfied with your lawyer's legal services?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you understand that you don't have to admit that you did anything wrong, you can have a hearing here in court and be confronted by any witnesses against you, but by this admission you give up those rights?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you understand you're admitting that you've committed the offense of simple assault which is considered under state law to be a minor offense?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: And do you further understand that . . . the maximum that could happen to you would be something called a level one disposition that would include among other things detention for up to five 24-hour periods and [an] order that you cooperate with placement in a wilderness program or placement in the custody of the Davie County Department of Social Services? Do you understand that?
        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you now personally admit that you committed the offense of simple assault?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Did you, in fact, commit a simple assault?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: And you and the State don't have any particular deal about what's going to happen in this case, do you?

        [JUVENILE]: No, sir.

        THE COURT: Has anybody made any promises to you or threatened you in any way to cause you to admit that you committed the offense of simple assault?

        [JUVENILE]: No, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you make this admission of your own free will understanding what you're doing?

        [JUVENILE]: Yes, sir.

        THE COURT: Do you have any questions about anything I've just talked with you about or anything else in connection with the case?

        [JUVENILE]: No, sir.
The transcript further reflects that, after being sworn to her responses, juvenile allowed the prosecutor to summarize the factual basis for her admission. The prosecutor stated that on 2 July 2002, juvenile assaulted Alisa Clement, a worker at the New Beginnings Group Home, by grabbing her by the shoulders and shoving her against a wall. Juvenile offered no testimony or evidence challenging the State's summary. Her counsel responded to the prosecutor's statement as follows:         Your Honor, [juvenile] just wants the Court to be aware and she does understand the elements of assault. But this is not her intention to have fought with this worker. . . . [Juvenile] was trying to turn out a light switch which she probably did not have authority to turn out and she brushed by [Clement] -- knocked her out of the way to get to the light switch and there w[ere] other things going on, and she understands that she's the child and the worker is the one with the authority, with the control and she did want to tell . . . the Court that she doesn't care to go back to detention today, and that she is looking forward to going back to New Beginnings.

Having heard from juvenile, her court counselor, and the parties' attorneys, the court determined “that there is a factual basis for the admission and that [juvenile's] admission is the product of [her] informed choice.”
    Juvenile asserts that her admission to the assault charge cannot be reconciled with her counsel's assertion that she accidentally “brushed” Clement. Juvenile claims her admission cannot be deemed knowing and voluntary because the trial court failed to ascertain that she understood the requirement that an assault be intentional.
    “In a juvenile hearing to determine delinquency, which may lead to commitment to a state institution, an admission by the juvenile of the allegations of the petition must be made with awareness of the consequences of the admission and must be made understandingly and voluntarily . . . .” In re Johnson, 32 N.C. App. 492, 493, 232 S.E.2d 486, 488 (1977). To ensure the knowing and voluntary nature of a juvenile's admission, the trial court must comply with the procedures set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407 (2003). Under this statute, the court must determine that “the admission is a product of informed choice” made without improper pressure and that a factual basis for the admission exists. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(b),(c). Moreover, a court may accept a juvenile's admission only after first addressing the juvenile personally and:
        (1) Informing the juvenile that the juvenile has a right to remain silent and that any statement the juvenile makes may be used against the juvenile;

        (2) Determining that the juvenile understands the nature of the charge;

        (3) Informing the juvenile that the juvenile has a right to deny the allegations;

        (4) Informing the juvenile that by the juvenile's admissions the juvenile waives the juvenile's right to be confronted by the witnesses against the juvenile;    

        (5) Determining that the juvenile is satisfied with the juvenile's representation; and

        (6) Informing the juvenile of the most restrictive disposition on the charge.        

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a). If the face of the record does not affirmatively show the trial court's compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407 and the knowing and voluntary nature of the juvenile's admission, the adjudication of delinquency will be set aside and the juvenile allowed to replead. In re Kenyon N., 110 N.C. App. 294, 296-97, 429 S.E.2d 447, 449 (1993); In re Chavis, 31 N.C. App. 579, 580-81, 230 S.E.2d 198, 200 (1976)     disc. rev. denied, 291 N.C. 711, 232 S.E.2d 203 (1977).
    We conclude that there is no error in juvenile's adjudicationof delinquency. The face of the record reflects that the district court accepted juvenile's admission to the assault allegation following an extensive discussion with her in open court as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a). Both juvenile and her counsel separately affirmed to the court that she understood the elements of assault. The prosecutor's summary provided an adequate factual basis for her admission. Although juvenile's counsel offered a somewhat softened version of juvenile's encounter with Clement at New Beginnings, counsel's concession that juvenile “knocked [Clement] out of the way to get to the light switch” supports a finding of an intentional, non-consensual and offensive touching sufficient to constitute an assault. Cf. State v. Colson, 194 N.C. 206, 208, 139 S.E. 230, 231 (1927); State v. Hill, 181 N.C. 558, 559-60, 107 S.E. 140, 141 (1921). As assault is a general intent offense, the State was not obliged to prove that the juvenile intended to have fought with Clement in order to support the charge. See generally State v. Elliott, 137 N.C. App. 282, 287-88, 528 S.E.2d 32, 36 (Lewis, J., dissenting), rev. per curiam on dissenting opinion, 352 N.C. 663, 535 S.E.2d 32 (2000).
    Juvenile's remaining assignments of error are not addressed in her brief to this Court and are deemed abandoned pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). We affirm the order of the trial court.
    Affirmed.
    Judges CALABRIA and ELMORE concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***