In re C.L.Y
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedure. NO. COA12-1570 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 September 2013 IN THE MATTER OF: C.L.Y. Mecklenburg County No. 11 J 664 Appeal disposition by respondent-juvenile orders entered 2 August from 2012 adjudication by Miller in Mecklenburg County District Court. Judge Regan and A. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 August 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General Mabel Y. Bullock, for the State. Deputy Attorney Marie H. Mobley for respondent-juvenile, C.L.Y. DILLON, Judge. Juvenile delinquent C.L.Y.1 based upon appeals findings from that orders he was adjudicating him responsible for resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer and placing him on probation. 1 We affirm. Initials are used throughout identity of the minor. this opinion to protect the -2The State presented evidence tending to show that on 6 January 2012, Officer Alan Timothy Savelle of the CharlotteMecklenburg Police Hendercrest enterings suspects and in in Department Beal was Streets the area. the breakings due Based and on on to foot recent the patrol near breakings and descriptions enterings, Officer of the Savelle initiated a voluntary contact with C.L.Y. and his companion when he saw the two walking in a parking lot. from his companion and walked toward C.L.Y. broke off the Hampton Apartments, in a direction away from Officer Savelle. Creste Officer Savelle, who was familiar with C.L.Y., confirmed that C.L.Y. had an outstanding secure custody order, which warrant[,] and radioed for assistance. is basically a A uniformed officer parked his patrol vehicle on Beal Street as C.L.Y. crossed Beal Street and fled into the apartment complex. When Officer Savelle saw C.L.Y. run from an apartment building stairwell, he yelled, stop, police. C.L.Y. continued to run until other officers took him into custody. The resisting, trial court delaying or adjudicated C.L.Y. obstructing an delinquent officer. After for a dispositional hearing, the trial court sentenced C.L.Y. as a -3Level 1 offender and placed him on supervised probation for six months. C.L.Y. appeals. C.L.Y. contends sufficiently allege the the juvenile charge of petition resisting, failed to delaying or obstructing a public officer on grounds that it did not properly allege the duty the officer was discharging at the time of the juvenile s alleged misconduct. He asserts the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the matter due to this allegedly fatal defect in the juvenile petition. We disagree. In a juvenile delinquency action, the juvenile petition serves essentially the same function as an indictment in a felony prosecution and is subject to the same requirement that it aver every element of a criminal offense, with sufficient specificity that the accused is clearly apprised of the conduct for which he is being charged. In re S.R.S., 180 N.C. App. 151, 153, 636 S.E.2d 277, 280 (2006) (quoting In re Griffin, 162 N.C. App. 487, 493, 592 S.E.2d 12, 16 (2004)). When a petition is fatally deficient, it is inoperative and fails to evoke the jurisdiction of the court. In re J.F.M. & T.J.B., 168 N.C. App. 143, 150, 607 S.E.2d 304, 309, appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 411, 612 S.E.2d 320 (2005). juvenile petitions are Because generally held to the standards of a -4criminal indictment, we consider the indictments of the offenses at issue. fact that fatal defects in a requirements Id. of the As a result of the juvenile petition are jurisdictional, challenges to the sufficiency of such petitions may be raised at any time despite the juvenile s failure to raise this issue before the trial court. S.R.S., 180 N.C. App. at 153, 636 S.E.2d at 279. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a) provides, in pertinent part, that: A criminal pleading must contain . . . [a] plain and concise factual statement in each count which, without allegations of an evidentiary nature, asserts facts supporting every element of a criminal offense and the defendant s commission thereof with sufficient precision clearly to apprise the defendant or defendants of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-924(a) (2011). Thus, a valid indictment or allege other charging instrument must necessary to meet the elements of the offense. all the facts State v. Ellis, 168 N.C. App. 651, 655, 608 S.E.2d 803, 806 (2005). According to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-223, a person is guilty of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer when he or she willfully and unlawfully resist[s], delay[s] or obstruct[s] a public officer in discharging or attempting to -5discharge a duty of his office[.] An indictment for the charge of resisting a public officer must 1) identify the officer by name, 2) indicate the official duty being discharged, and 3) indicate generally how defendant resisted the officer. J.F.M., 168 N.C. App. at 150-51, 607 S.E.2d at 309 (quoting State v. (1992)). Swift, 105 N.C. App. 550, 553, 414 S.E.2d 65, 67 In the offense of resisting an officer, the resisting of the public officer in the performance of some duty is the primary conduct proscribed by that statute and the particular duty that the officer is performing while being resisted is of paramount importance and is very material to the preparation of the defendant s defense[.] State v. Waller, 37 N.C. App. 133, 135, 245 S.E.2d 808, 810 (1978) (quotation omitted). The juvenile petition charging C.L.Y. with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer alleged that: [T]he juvenile did unlawfully and willfully resist, delay and obstruct (name officer) AT Savelle, a public officer holding the office of (name office) Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Officer, by (describe conduct) [] fleeing from the officer & ignoring commands to stop. At the time, the officer was discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of his/her office (name duty) arrest. A careful reading of the juvenile petition filed against C.L.Y. reveals that the petition describes arrest as the duty -6that Officer Savelle was discharging or attempting to discharge at the time describes of a C.L.Y. s duty that flight. Officer Because Savelle attempting to discharge at the time of juvenile petition alleges all the the was petition discharging C.L.Y. s essential here or flight, the elements of the offense of resisting, delaying, or obstructing a public officer. Accordingly, the court had jurisdiction over C.L.Y. court s adjudication responsible for and resisting, disposition delaying officer are affirmed. AFFIRMED. Judges GEER and ERVIN concur. Report per Rule 30(e). or orders The trial finding obstructing a C.L.Y. public
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
