Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McKinney v. Duncan

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

December 5, 2017

SHIRLEY G. McKINNEY and ROBERT J. McKINNEY, Plaintiffs,
v.
MARK JEFFREY DUNCAN, Defendant.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2017

         Appeal by defendant from orders dated 12 December 2016 by Judge Mary F. Paul in Davidson County District Court. No. 16 CVD 1729-30

          David S. Doherty for plaintiffs-appellees.

          Richard Croutharmel for defendant-appellant.

          ZACHARY, Judge.

         Mark Duncan (defendant) appeals from orders finding him in contempt of earlier orders that had directed him to have no contact with Shirley McKinney or Robert McKinney (plaintiffs). On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by "failing to specify a deadline" within which defendant could purge himself of civil contempt, with the result that the court's order was "impermissibly vague in that it effectively held the defendant in civil contempt indefinitely." Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that he had the present ability to comply with the purge condition that he obtain a psychological examination within 60 days of the entry of the order. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that defendant has attempted to appeal from orders that were not entered. An order cannot be enforced or appealed until it is entered, and we are without jurisdiction to consider defendant's appeal, which must be dismissed.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         On 30 June 2016, plaintiffs filed complaints seeking entry of no-contact orders barring defendant from harassing or threatening them. A hearing was conducted on plaintiffs' complaints in domestic violence court on 5 July 2016, before the Honorable B. Carlton Terry, Jr. Ms. McKinney testified that defendant and his wife had moved into a house across the street from plaintiffs' house about a year earlier. After moving into the neighborhood, defendant had engaged in threatening and upsetting behavior, including shouting at Ms. McKinney and making "pig noises" in her direction, displaying a banner that disparaged the condition of plaintiffs' yard, and sending letters to Ms. McKinney that she found frightening. On one occasion, defendant displayed a firearm and pointed it at plaintiffs' house, before firing it in a different direction. Mr. McKinney testified that he was 28 years old and lived with his mother, Ms. McKinney. His testimony generally corroborated that of Ms. McKinney; in addition, Mr. McKinney testified that defendant stalked and harassed him as Mr. McKinney walked from his home to his employment at a Walmart store a few minutes away. Defendant testified that he was a "62 year old grandfather, disabled veteran" and that he had not committed the acts to which plaintiffs testified.

         At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled that plaintiffs had proven by the preponderance of the evidence that on one or more occasions defendant had harassed or tormented plaintiffs. The court informed defendant that it was entering no-contact orders and that for the following year defendant would be subject to restrictions:

So for both of these cases for the next year, sir, I'm ordering that you should not visit, assault, molest or otherwise interfere with either of these Plaintiffs. Cease stalking of them is a term of art. Cease harassment. Do not abuse or injure them. Do not contact them by telephone, written communication, or electronic means, or in person. Do not enter or remain present at their residence, place of employment for the next year.

         On 5 July 2016, Judge Terry entered no-contact orders barring defendant from having any contact with either plaintiff. Defendant did not appeal these orders.

         Upon plaintiffs' motions filed on 22 August 2016, the assistant clerk of court issued orders that required defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violating the terms of the no-contact orders entered on 5 July 2016. Plaintiffs' motions alleged that defendant had failed to comply with the no-contact orders and had continued to engage in harassing and threatening behavior. The parties subsequently reached an agreement resolving the issues raised by plaintiffs' motions. At a hearing conducted on 10 October 2016 by the Honorable Mary F. Paul, the judge reviewed the terms of each of the memoranda of agreement, which were then signed by the parties, defense counsel, and the court. The judgments specified ways in which the parties agreed to respect one another's privacy and avoid contact, and provided that the judgments could be enforced by contempt proceedings.

         Upon plaintiffs' motions filed on 8 November 2016, the assistant clerk of court issued orders that required defendant to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for violation of the terms of the no-contact orders entered 5 July 2016 and of the consent judgments entered 10 October 2016 in response to plaintiffs' earlier motions for contempt. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant continued to engage in threatening and harassing behavior directed at plaintiffs. Judge Paul conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motions on 12 December 2016. Ms. McKinney testified that defendant had continued to violate the terms of the original no-contact orders and the consent judgments. Defendant testified that he had abided by the orders.

         On 12 December 2016, Judge Paul signed orders with respect to each plaintiff, finding defendant in contempt of both the no-contact orders and both of the judgments. The orders stated that defendant was to be incarcerated until he was no longer in contempt, but that the incarceration was stayed and that defendant could purge himself of contempt by committing "no further violations of the orders entered on 7/5/16 and 10/10/16" and by obtaining a psychological evaluation within 60 days. Defendant appealed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.