In re: M.L.W., B.W., K.R.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-06-17
The case involved a father appealing a May 2025 permanency planning order in a North Carolina juvenile proceeding, where his three children had been adjudicated neglected and dependent after their mother's death, interstate moves, and placement with a relative, Ms. Smith; the order granted her guardianship and allowed the father visitation. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the father had not personally signed the notice of appeal, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(c). The court declined to invoke Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure sua sponte to treat the appellate brief as a petition for certiorari, finding no manifest injustice, since the record showed the trial court had properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50A-204) and the father had not demonstrated grounds for review.
family lawprocedure
In re: Rock
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-06-17
The case involved respondent Martin E. Rock’s appeal from Durham County Superior Court orders that authorized a substitute trustee to proceed with foreclosure on his property under a 2007 deed of trust and denied his motion to withdraw his appeal from the clerk’s initial foreclosure order. After Rock appealed to superior court, the foreclosure sale occurred, the property was conveyed to the highest bidder, and a trustee’s deed was recorded. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot. The court reasoned that once a foreclosure sale is completed and the trustee’s deed recorded, the parties’ rights become fixed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.29A, rendering any challenge to the sale unreviewable. It distinguished the case from In re Cornblum, finding the superior court’s orders fell within its statutory jurisdiction under § 45-21.16(d) and that Rock’s mid-hearing attempt to withdraw his appeal did not strip the court of authority or create reviewable collateral consequences.
propertyprocedure
In re: R.L.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-06-03
In re R.L. involved a Craven County DSS juvenile petition alleging that three-month-old Robbie was abused after he was found with multiple unexplained fractures and bruises while in his parents’ care. Following an adjudication of abuse, the trial court entered a combined initial disposition and permanency planning order that found aggravating circumstances—specifically chronic physical abuse—and determined that reasonable efforts toward reunification were not required. On appeal, the mother challenged the trial court’s judicial notice of prior Responsible Individuals List orders and its cessation of reunification efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother waived review of the judicial-notice issue by failing to object at the hearing and that competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings of repeated non-accidental injuries, satisfying the statutory grounds under N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c) to eliminate reunification efforts at the initial disposition stage.
family law
State v. Hampton
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-06-03
The case involved Joshua C. Hampton’s appeal of multiple criminal judgments from Cherokee County Superior Court, where he was sentenced as a prior record level IV felon partly based on a 2000 Florida conviction for home invasion robbery, which the trial court treated as substantially similar to North Carolina’s Class D armed robbery offense. Hampton argued that the record did not allow a proper comparison of the elements of the Florida offense to any North Carolina felony, requiring resentencing. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing, holding that the appellate record was insufficient because the State’s exhibits—the certified Florida conviction documents and the relevant statutes—were never filed in the trial court and could not be located despite efforts to reconstruct them. The court noted that the record also lacked information on the date the Florida offense was committed and which version of the Florida statute applied, preventing determination of substantial similarity as required under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(e). Both parties may present additional evidence at the resentencing hearing.
criminal lawprocedure
In re: J.D.W., A.R.W., Jr.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-06-03
The case involved the termination of parental rights of a mother and father to their two young children after the parents were convicted in connection with the beating death of the father’s older child, which occurred in the younger children’s presence amid severely unsafe home conditions including unsecured weapons, blood evidence, and animal waste. The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services had obtained custody, secured adjudications of neglect and dependency, ceased reunification efforts, and petitioned for termination on neglect grounds. The trial court denied the mother’s oral request for the judge’s recusal and entered an order terminating both parents’ rights. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother presented no substantial evidence of personal bias or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality and that the trial court’s findings supported both the existence of neglect and the conclusion that termination served the children’s best interests.
family law
State v. Branch
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026-05-20
The case involved defendant Traven Laree Branch’s appeal from a trial court order revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentences in two Cumberland County cases. The Court of Appeals vacated the revocation in Case No. 23 CRS 005219, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the only revocation-eligible violation (absconding) appeared in an addendum the State never served on the defendant, violating the statutory notice requirement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e). It affirmed the revocation in Case No. 22 CRS 050476, concluding that the defendant’s in-court admission through counsel of the absconding violation constituted competent evidence and satisfied due process. The court reasoned that the served violation reports in the second case did not support revocation on their own, but the unchallenged admission of absconding did.
criminal lawprocedure