IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2021-NCCOA-613

No. COA21-353

Filed 16 November 2021

Cumberland County, No. 19 JB 353

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.G.

Appeal by respondent-juvenile by writ of certiorari from adjudication order 

entered 5 October 2020 by Judge Sam Hamadani in Wake County District Court and 

amended dispositional order entered 7 April 2021 by Judge Cheri Siler-Mack in 

Cumberland County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 October 2021.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Zachary K. 

Dunn, for the State.

Law Office of Kellie Mannette, PLLC, by Kellie Mannette, for respondentappellant juvenile.

ZACHARY, Judge.

¶ 1 Respondent-juvenile “Jake” appeals from the trial court’s orders adjudicating 

him to be a Level 3 delinquent juvenile and committing him to a Youth Development 

Center. After careful review, we reverse the adjudication and disposition orders and 

remand for further proceedings.

Background
IN RE: J.G.

2021-NCCOA-613

Opinion of the Court

¶ 2 The relevant facts are few. On 5 October 2020, Jake appeared in Wake County 

District Court on four juvenile petitions, one alleging that he had committed the 

offense of breaking or entering a motor vehicle. Jake, his counsel, and the prosecutor 

entered into a transcript of admission, in which Jake admitted to one count of 

breaking or entering a motor vehicle. The juvenile court accepted and signed the 

transcript of admission. The transcript of admission provided that the “most 

serious/severe disposition” on the charge was a Level 2 disposition. The juvenile court 

also informed Jake that the most serious disposition that he could face for the 

breaking or entering charge was a Level 2 disposition, “which could include, among 

other things, detention for up to 14 24-hour periods, placement in a wilderness 

program or a residential treatment facility, or house arrest[.]” The State dismissed 

the three remaining charges, and the court adjudicated Jake to be delinquent and 

transferred his case to Cumberland County District Court for disposition. 

¶ 3 The disposition hearing was held on 24 February 2021 in Cumberland County 

District Court. After evaluating Jake’s prior history with the juvenile court system, 

the court concluded that it “ha[d] no other alternative but to recommend and [o]rder 

a Level [3] Disposition.” On 25 February 2021, the court entered its order directing 

that Jake be committed to a Youth Development Center for a minimum of 6 months, 

with the term of commitment not to exceed his 20th birthday. On 12 March, 22 March, 
IN RE: J.G.

2021-NCCOA-613

Opinion of the Court

and 7 April 2021, the juvenile court entered amended orders that continued the Level 

3 disposition. On 25 February 2021, Jake gave written notice of appeal. 

Grounds for Appellate Review

¶ 4 As a preliminary matter, we address our jurisdiction to consider the merits of 

Jake’s appeal. Although Jake filed a written notice of appeal, his notice was not 

sufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court.

¶ 5 First, the notice did not comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of the North 

Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although the notice included the correct name 

and juvenile court file number for Jake’s case, it did not otherwise properly identify 

the orders being appealed, specify the court to which the appeal was directed, or 

include the requisite proof of service of the notice on the State. See N.C.R. App. P. 3; 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2602 (2019). Moreover, the juvenile court entered three amended 

dispositional orders after Jake’s notice of appeal was filed on 25 February. 

¶ 6 Generally, when a juvenile “has not properly given notice of appeal, this Court 

is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal.” In re E.A., 267 N.C. App. 396, 397, 833 

S.E.2d 630, 631 (2019) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Jake’s appeal is subject to 

dismissal. In re I.T.P–L., 194 N.C. App. 453, 459, 670 S.E.2d 282, 285 (2008), disc. 

review denied, 363 N.C. 581, 681 S.E.2d 783 (2009).
IN RE: J.G.

2021-NCCOA-613

Opinion of the Court

¶ 7 However, during the pendency of this appeal, Jake’s appellate counsel filed a 

petition for writ of certiorari with this Court. For the reasons explained below, we 

allow Jake’s petition for writ of certiorari.

¶ 8 Pursuant to Rule 21, this Court may allow a petition for writ of certiorari in 

juvenile cases “to permit consideration of their appeals on the merits so as to avoid 

penalizing [r]espondents for their attorneys’ errors.” Id. at 460, 670 S.E.2d at 285 

(allowing petitions for writ of certiorari where respondent-parents filed “timely, albeit 

incomplete, notices of appeal”).

¶ 9 Here, although not properly perfected, Jake’s notice of appeal clearly 

demonstrated his intent to appeal the adjudication and disposition orders: it was filed 

the day after the dispositional hearing, it referenced the correct juvenile court file 

number, and it was titled “Notice of Appeal.” Additionally, for reasons more fully 

explained below, there is no resulting prejudice to the State, which concedes the trial 

court’s error. Thus, pursuant to Rule 21, we allow Jake’s petition for writ of certiorari 

and proceed to the merits of his appeal. N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1). 

Discussion

¶ 10 Jake asserts that the juvenile court erred in ordering a Level 3 disposition, 

when the transcript of admission provided, and the juvenile court informed him, that 

the most severe disposition that he would receive was a Level 2. Such error, Jake 

argues, rendered his admission to the relevant offense neither knowing nor 
IN RE: J.G.

2021-NCCOA-613

Opinion of the Court

voluntary, and consequently requires reversal of the adjudication and disposition 

orders. The State concedes the juvenile court’s error, and after careful review, we 

agree.

¶ 11 “We have long considered that the acceptance of an admission by a juvenile is 

tantamount to the acceptance of a guilty plea by an adult in a criminal case.” In re 

W.H., 166 N.C. App. 643, 645, 603 S.E.2d 356, 358 (2004). The record in a juvenile 

case “must therefore affirmatively show on its face that the admission was entered 

knowingly and voluntarily.” Id. at 646, 603 S.E.2d at 358 (citation omitted). 

¶ 12 Section 7B-2407 of the Juvenile Code requires that the trial court inform the 

juvenile, inter alia, “of the most restrictive disposition on the charge” before accepting 

the juvenile’s admission. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2407(a)(6). “If the face of the record 

does not affirmatively show the trial court’s compliance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B2407 and the knowing and voluntary nature of the juvenile’s admission, the 

adjudication of delinquency will be set aside.” In re W.H., 166 N.C. App. at 646, 603 

S.E.2d at 359. “[W]hen a trial court plans to impose a disposition level higher than 

that set out in the [transcript of admission], the juvenile must be given a chance to 

withdraw his plea and be granted a continuance.” Id. at 647, 603 S.E.2d at 359.

¶ 13 In the present case, Jake’s “admission was based on a belief that the most 

restrictive disposition he could receive was a Level 2, and the [juvenile] court, without 

sufficient notice to him or any accompanying chance to withdraw the admission, 
IN RE: J.G.

2021-NCCOA-613

Opinion of the Court

raised the most restrictive disposition he could receive to a Level 3.” Id. Thus, as the 

State concedes, Jake’s admission was not knowing and voluntary, and the 

adjudication of delinquency, as well as the disposition order, must “be set aside.” Id.

at 646, 603 S.E.2d at 359. The reversal of the orders “places the parties as they were 

at the beginning of the proceedings.” In re D.A.F., 179 N.C. App. 832, 837, 635 S.E.2d 

509, 512 (2006).

Conclusion

¶ 14 Accordingly, we vacate the transcript of admission, reverse the juvenile court’s 

adjudication order and amended disposition order, and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Judges MURPHY and COLLINS concur.