in the Court of Appeals 16 October 2017
by juvenile from orders entered 16 August 2016 by Judge David
H. Strickland in Mecklenburg County District Court, No. 14 JB
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney
General Brent D. Kiziah, for the State.
N. Kapur, for juvenile-appellant.
the juvenile conceded the fact that the school was an entity
capable of owning property, and the State presented evidence
that the school in fact owned the damaged property, the trial
court did not err in denying the juvenile's motion to
dismiss. Where the 10-day detention to which the trial court
sentenced the juvenile, as a Level 2 offender, was for a
period of confinement beyond the limits of the statute
pursuant to which the juvenile was sentenced, the trial court
erred in its sentence. Further, where the trial court failed
to sentence the juvenile, as a Level 2 offender, to an
intermediate disposition as mandated by N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 7B-2508(d), the trial court erred in violation of a
statutory mandate. We affirm in part, but remand for
Factual and Procedural Background
March 2016, J.B. ("the juvenile") , a
twelve-year-old student, was in a classroom in Lincoln
Heights Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina. During the
class, the juvenile became upset and agitated, and pushed a
number of things including, inter alia, a computer
and Hewlett Packer printer from the teacher's desk onto
the floor. The computer was not damaged but the printer was
damaged, and eventually replaced.
June 2016, a juvenile petition for delinquency was filed,
alleging that the juvenile had committed the offense of
injury to personal property by "damag[ing] a printer and
computer after pushing it off the teachers [sic]
desk[.]" During the subsequent proceeding, at the close
of the State's evidence, the juvenile moved to dismiss
the petition. This motion was denied. The juvenile presented
August 2016, the juvenile was found liable for a class 2
misdemeanor, injury to personal property, and adjudicated
delinquent. The trial court considered the juvenile's
prior misdemeanor adjudications, and that same day, entered a
disposition order, sentencing the juvenile as a Level 2
offender and ordering the juvenile to serve 10 days'
detention in the custody of the Sheriff of Mecklenburg
the adjudication and disposition orders, the juvenile
Motion to Dismiss
first argument, the juvenile contends that the trial court
erred in denying his motion to dismiss. We disagree.
Standard of Review
Court reviews the trial court's denial of a motion to
dismiss de novo." State v. Smith, 186
N.C.App. 57, 62, 650 S.E.2d 29, 33 (2007).
'Upon defendant's motion for dismissal, the question
for the Court is whether there is substantial evidence (1) of
each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser
offense included therein, and (2) of defendant's being
the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is
properly denied.' " State v. Fritsch, 351
N.C. 373, 378, 526 S.E.2d 451, 455 (quoting State v.
Barnes, 334 N.C. 67, 75, 430 S.E.2d 914, 918 (1993)),
cert. denied, 531 U.S. 890, 148 L.Ed.2d 150 (2000).
"In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence,
we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
State, giving the State the benefit of all reasonable
inferences." Id. at 378-79, 526 S.E.2d at 455.
trial, the State presented only one witness, Star Kelly
("Kelly"), a "teacher-assistant" at
Lincoln Heights Academy, who was present in the classroom
during the juvenile's outburst. At the close of the
State's evidence, the juvenile moved to dismiss.
Specifically, the motion to dismiss alleged that (1) there
was no evidence presented that the damage caused by the
juvenile exceeded $200, and (2) there ...