Effective December 1, 2011, Article 5 of Chapter 15A of the North Carolina General Statutes was amended by adding a new section, G.S. 15A-145.4, pursuant to which nonviolent felonies for first offenders who were under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime can be expunged off their records as long as certain requirements are met.

Generally, the fact that one was charged with a crime remains on their record regardless of the disposition of the charge, unless it gets expunged.

Expungement is a process by which criminal charges can be removed from ones official criminal record.

Regardless of ones age, cases in which the criminal charges were dismissed or a finding of not guilty was returned can be expunged pursuant to N.C.G.S. 15A-146.  In this case, offenses can be either a misdemeanor, a felony, or an infraction under G.S. 18B-302(i). However, one must not have any previous convictions of any felonies or misdemeanors other than traffic violations.

First offenders not over the age of 21 at the time of the offense, can also pursue an expungement if:

1.    They were charged with certain drug offenses which were dismissed based on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement pursuant to N.C.G.S. 90-96(a).  (See N.C.G.S. 15A-145.2)

2.    They were charged with certain toxic vapors offenses which were dismissed based on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement pursuant to N.C.G.S. 90-113.14(a) or (a1).  (see N.C.G.S. 15A-145.3)

First offenders under the age of 18 at the time of the offense however can even get charges expunged of their record of which they were convicted.  Until the amendment of the North Carolina expungement laws enacted by The General Assembly of North Carolina went in effect on December 1, 2011, the list of eligible convictions were exclusive of felony charges other than Class H felonies under Article 13A of Chapter 14 or enhanced charges under N.C.G.S. 14-50.22 (certain gang offenses).  However, now one can even get “nonviolent felony” charges expunged. “Nonviolent Felony” means for purposes of this section any felony except the following:

1.    A Class A through G felony.
2.    A felony that includes assault as an essential element of the offense.
3.    A felony that is an offense for which the convicted offender must register under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.
4.    A felony that is an offense that did not require registration under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes at the time of the commission of the offense but does require registration on the date the petition to expunge the offense would be filed.
5.     A felony charged for any of the following sex-related or stalking offenses: G.S. 14-27.7A(b), 14-190.6, 14-190.7, 14-190.8, 14-202, 14-208.11A, 14-208.18, 14-277.3A, 14-321.1.
6.    Any felony offense charged pursuant to Chapter 90 of the General Statutes where the offense involves methamphetamines, heroin, or possession with intent to sell or deliver or sell and deliver cocaine.
7.    A felony offense charged pursuant to G.S. 14-12.12(b), 14-12.13, or 14-12.14, or any offense charged as a felony pursuant to G.S. 14-3(c).
8.    A felony offense charged pursuant to G.S. 14-401.16.
9.    A felony offense in which a commercial motor vehicle was used in the commission of the offense.

If you feel you may be eligible to pursue an expungement in New Hanover, Pender, or Brunswick Counties, North Carolina, call Collins Law Firm for a consultation at (910) 793-9000.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Effective January 1, 2012, Article 2 of Chapter 20 of the North Carolina General Statutes was amended by adding a new section introducing an immediate 30 day civil license revocation for provisional licensees.  Pursuant to General Statute 20-13.3(a)(4) a provisional licensee is defined as a person under the age of 18 who has a limited learner’s permit, a limited provisional license, or a full provisional license issued pursuant to G.S. 20-11.

Pursuant to this new law, a license revocation can be triggered by common offenses such as Speeding more than 15 mph over the limit or more than 80 mph in a 70 mph zone, Reckless Driving, Speeding to Elude Arrest, Aggressive Driving, Failing to move over for law enforcement or emergency vehicles giving a warning signal.  A complete list of criminal moving violations subjecting a provisional licensee’s permit or license to revocation can be found on page two of the affidavit and revocation report newly issued by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts to be used for law enforcement officers (new AOC-CVR-12).

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(d) the provisional licensee must be given  a copy of the revocation order (new AOC-CVR-13) by the he judicial official which must state the date on which the provisional licensee’s permit or license becomes valid again.  The provisional licensee keeps their license or permit, however, they are not authorized to drive during the revocation period.

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(f), a  provisional licensee who is subject to a civil license revocation under this new law is not eligible for a limited driving privilege.

At the conclusion of the revocation period the person’s permit or license becomes valid by operation of law—payment of a fee is not required.

Pursuant to G.S. 20-13.3(h) no driver’s license or insurance surcharge may be assessed for a provisional licensee revocation pursuant to the this new law.

A provisional licensee who drives a motor vehicle on a highway during the period of revocation under G.S. 20-13.3 commits the offense of driving while license revoked under G.S. 20-28.

Collins Law Firm has been representing people charged with traffic citations, speeding tickets, and other criminal charges in Southeast North Carolina for over ten years and we will be happy to discuss your situation with you. Feel free to call for a consultation regarding any legal matters for which you need legal representation at (910) 793-9000.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

How much is a companion pet worth? This is the question that is being asked in regards to the death of Laci, a Jack Russel Terrier of a Wilmington couple. Laci died in 2007 after veterinarians at NC State inserted a feeding tube in her trachea instead of her esophagus, causing Laci to drown over several hours. The Sheras filed a complaint in 2009 against the NC State Veterinary School, two veterinary residents and an intern who treated Laci. The couple accused them of malpractice. In their lawsuit the Sheras question whether the residents had the proper supervision while working in the intensive care unit.

The Sheras, Laci’s owners, are fighting a legal battle with the state over how much they are entitled from Laci’s death. The value of a companion animal is being calculated at the fair market value of replacing the animal which is not in line with the value that Americans place onto pets. Many state laws view animals as being a piece of property instead of another member of the family. There is an argument against this view based upon the legal system’s valuation of a companion animal not being in line with what an average pet owner is willing to spend in veterinary bills.

The Sheras have been fighting this view of compensation and the rights of animal owners over the loss or injury of an animal caused by another. The State estimates the cost of replacing Laci is only $350 based upon market value. The Sheras’ attorney argues that they are entitled to more than $350, that they should be compensated for more than $28,000, which was the cost of Laci’s cancer treatments at NC State.

The Sheras have made statements about this lawsuit not being about the money, but rather about this being justice for Laci and trying to change the system. They are hoping to change the law so that no other family or pet has to go through what they have been through.

On January 23rd, 2012, the Sheras’ case made it to the North Carolina state Court of Appeals but the decision is not expected for at least a few months. The Sheras’ case is just one of the recent court cases that essentially treat animals as human under the law. The United States Courts are deciding against centuries of legal decisions that have defined animals as property. In recent years Judges in 25 states have administered financial trusts set up in pets’ names as well as courts in New York, Maryland and Texas resolving custody disputes involving pets by deciding what’s best for the pet. The Courts have begun to take claims of veterinary malpractice seriously as well. Courts in Kentucky and California have awarded damages to pet owners for the loss of companionship, emotional distress and other factors that go beyond the assessed animal’s worth based upon their market value.

By Samantha Barringer, Intern at Collins Law Firm

On the evening of Friday, January 13, 2012, there were scenes of panic near the island of Giglio, Italy—the Costa Concordia, a luxury cruise ship, hit a sandbar causing a 165 feet gash across the ships left side.  The ship started taking on water forcing some 4,200 people aboard to evacuate.  Most people managed to reach the nearby island by lifeboats, others swam ashore, and some 50 people who were trapped on the badly listed ship were plucked to safety by helicopters.

Unfortunately, this accident claimed the lives of at least 16 people—21 more people remain listed as missing.

In addition, experts fear fuel could leak from the capsized cruise liner into the sea off the Italian coast.  After an unidentified liquid was found escaping from the holed cruise liner, Italy’s government declared a state of emergency.

The man accused of causing this disaster by steering the ship too close to the island’s shore and later abandoning the ship before evacuation was completed, Francesco Schettino, the captain of the ship, is under house arrest.

Costa Cruises, a daughter of the US Carnival Cruises, offered today in addition to a refund of the full costs of their cruise, travel expenses and any medical expenses sustained after the grounding a €11,000 (~$14,500) settlement to each passenger, whether child or adult, who suffered no physical injuries—injured passengers will be dealt with individually.

However, Codacons, an associations for the protection of the environment and the rights of users and consumers, did not participate in the negotiations, and is collecting names for a class action suit to be filed in Miami, Florida requesting €125,000 (~165,000) for each passenger.  Codacons’ president Carlo Rienzi even urges passengers to see a doctor to check whether they had suffered psychological trauma.

American advocates however argue that each passenger has different damages and needs to be dealt with individually.  Therefore, they do not see a class action to be the right tool and instead suggest for passengers to file individual lawsuits.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

On Friday, January 6, 2012 after a months long investigation by the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter NHSO), Vice and Narcotics Detectives seized the largest amount of heroin in NHSO history, and arrested Tierre Henderson.

The raid lead to the discovery of 300 small paper bags of heroin stamped “Breaking Dawn” and “Dream Catcher” which have a street value of more than $9,000, and diverse drug paraphernalia.

The  accused drug trafficker Tierre Henderson is now held in New Hanover County Detention Facility for four counts of possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver heroin, two counts of sale or delivery of heroin, two counts of conspiracy to trafficking in opium/heroin, four counts of  maintaining a dwelling, vehicle, or other place for the use, storage, or sale of a controlled substance, manufacture of heroin, four counts of trafficking in opium/heroin, and five counts of possession of drug paraphernalia.  He is held under a $2.5 million bond.  His next court appearance is schedule in New Hanover County District Court in Wilmington, North Carolina on January 19, 2012.

The investigation of Tierre Henderson also lead the Vice and Narcotics Detectives to Chrissy Joy Sinclair in her residence in Holly Ridge, where—with the assistance of the Holly Ridge Police Department—5.5 ounces of pure uncut heroin was seized which would produce over 15,000 bags of heroin on the streets of New Hanover County, along with drug paraphernalia, and $60,000 cash.

Chrissy Joy Sinclair is being held in the New Hanover County Detention Facility under a $1 million bond.  She is charged with five counts of conspiracy to trafficking in opium/heroin, two counts of maintaining a dwelling, vehicle, or other place for the use, storage, or sale of a controlled substance, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  Her next court appearance is schedule in New Hanover County District Court in Wilmington, North Carolina on January 26, 2012.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Effective for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011 the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina has enacted a new, additional court cost specific to impaired driving offenses, which took effect on December 1, 2011.

Unlike most changes to court costs which were enacted during the past years and which typically took effect for costs assessed or collected on or after the effective date of the enacting legislation, this cost applies only to convictions for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011. The fee may not be assessed for offenses committed prior to that date.

The new fee of $100 is to be assessed in addition to all other costs applicable to the case; it does not replace any other costs. E.g., it is assessed in addition to the Chapter 20 fee of G.S. 7A-304(a)(4b), not in lieu of it. The cost is to be assessed only upon conviction, so the fee should not be assessed unless the defendant is convicted of one of the following offenses:  Impaired driving, G.S. 20-138.1; Impaired driving in commercial vehicle, G.S. 20-138.2; Operating a commercial vehicle after consuming alcohol (second or subsequent convictions, only), G.S. 20-138.2A; and Operating a school bus, activity bus, or child care vehicle after consuming alcohol (second or subsequent convictions, only), G.S. 20-138.2B.

Because it is a court cost under G.S. 7A-304, waiver of this fee requires that the court make a finding of just cause for the waiver, pursuant to G.S 7A-304(a).

Collins Law Firm regularly represents people charged with impaired driving offenses with court appearances in New Hanover, Pender, and Brunswick County.  If you were charged, you should contact a lawyer or attorney at Collins Law Firm at 910-793-9000 for a consultation.

By Jana Collins, Office Manager

Amanda Knox will be at home in Seattle this week for the first time in over four years.  The Italian appeals court overturned her murder conviction.  After arriving back in the United States, she said: “What’s important for me to say is just thank you, to everyone who has believed in me, who has defended me, who has supported my family,” she said. “Thank you for being there for me.”
Knox became fluent in Italian since being jailed in Italy for so long.  Before beginning her remarks, Knox smiled and said, “They’re reminding me to speak in English.”

Knox was convicted of murder in the 2007 death of her roommate – Meredith Kercher.  Knox had been sentenced to 26 years in prison.  Knox said she wanted the Kercher family to be remembered.

While the appeals court exonerated Knox of the most serious charges,  the court upheld her conviction on the charge of defamation against Patrick Lumumba, based on Knox accusing him of killing Kercher.  She was sentenced to three years in prison, which she has already served.

Kercher’s body was found partly naked, with more than 40 stab wounds and a deep gash in her throat, in the flat she was a roommate with Knox in Perugia where they were studying.

The Italian prosecutors announced they intend to appeal Knox’s case to Italy’s highest appellate court.  If Italy’s highest court – the Corte Suprema – rules in the prosecutor’s favor, it could reinstate the murder charge against Knox.  Italy then could seek her extradition from the United States to be sentenced.

Knox was a popular girl in Seattle before she went to Italy.  She had won her school’s highest award – the  Manvel Schauffler Award – named after a founder of the school.

Candace Dempsey – a Seattle-based author of one of about a dozen books that have been written about the Knox case, said “She has earning power now that she is free. . . .  She can write a book and she can certainly help her family pay back the bills” they incurred in her defense, and on their prolonged visits to Italy.

There is a large debate over the legality and rights of same sex marriage and whether it is a constitutionally given right.  While it is up to the fifty states to decide whether same sex marriage is legal, there is a large debate occurring in our nation about whether it should be legal.  Some people are against same sex marriage for religious reasons or cultural reasons.  There is a clause in the US Constitution known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which states that all of the States within the United States must respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”  The clause is Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.  This clause was created to ensure that decisions made by a judicial system in one state are recognized and honored in every other state.

Since the Full Faith and Credit Clause is a part of the US Constitution, some think that when one state legalizes same sex marriage, that other states are bound to honor those marriages that are produced from that state.  Those opposing same sex marriage are against honoring any marriage certificate from a same sex marriage based upon passing constitutional amendments and acts passed by Congress.

The State of North Carolina does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996.  This act defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. While same sex marriage is already considered illegal in North Carolina, some members of the North Carolina Legislature want to pass an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution that would prohibit any legal recognition of same sex partners, including prohibiting private companies from allowing same sex couples from enjoying insurance benefits, retirement pay outs, and other benefits provided to married couples.  This amendment would make it a difficult task for future legislature to overturn the ban on same sex marriage.

The North Carolina legislature has deemed same sex marriage to be illegal and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. The recent bill to create an amendment to ban same sex marriage shows that there is a strong desire among many members of the new republican legislature to prevent same sex marriage from ever being considered legal in the state of North Carolina in the future.

Written by Samantha Barringer – Intern with Collins Law Firm

The Wilmington Star News, based in New Hanover County, NC, recently reported updates on the rift between the Brunswick County District Attorney Jon David and Chief District Court Judge Jerry Jolly.  The paper reported that Administrative traffic court resumed Wednesday, September 7, 2011 in Brunswick County, NC, about five months after it was canceled by Judge Jolly, and  about 135 people filed into a line to speak with a prosecutor and judge.  It’s going to take a little while to load up the pipeline,” said Mr. David. He also said that the court could handle around 1,000 people in a traffic court session, he said.

The star news also indicated that the return of Traffic Court was presumed because legislators approved a bill requiring Traffic Court in every  judicial district by October 1, 2011, and that  filings in the appeal at the North Carolina Supreme Court revealed tensions that exist within the Brunswick County courthouse.

Every year, court costs increase, but this year is different.  With the new republican controlled legislature and the budget crisis, the government is looking to increase revenue and it seems they have looked to court costs.  While in the past, there have been nominal increase – usually once a year, this year there have been two already, and another one set to hit later this year.

The court costs for an improper equipment violation (a non moving violation to which many traffic offenses may be reduced to avoid both DMV points and insurance points) increased effective October 1, 2010 from $161 to $166.  On July 1, 2011 court costs went up for an improper equipment (IE) from $166 to $195. And effective August 1, 2011 court costs for an IE went up from $195 to $263.

Not only are the costs increasing, but they are becoming more complex!  The amount of the court costs in a criminal case now depends on the class or type of crime alleged.  The costs are different for infractions and misdemeanors, and different for chapter 20 violations (traffic violations) and other crimes.  Check out the official documents giving notice of the changes and the charts provided to explain the costs and how to calculate them:  http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/Trial/Costs/Default.asp

In addition to the changes and increases, the lack of advance notice have been especially frustrating. For example, look at the at the 2011 Court Costs Memo – effective July 1, 2011 in the list of documents at the AOC link above. The date of the memo is: June 28, 2011, and it refers to:  “Legislative Increases in Court Costs and Fees, July 2011; EFFECTIVE July 1, 2011, unless otherwise noted.”

These changes have not only been costly to our clients but they have also been very confusing and cumbersome to everyone involved!  The staff in the courts have been expressing frustration, understandably so, including some of the clerks and the District Attorneys’ staff.  Even some of the judges have been making comments about the changes and uncertainty associated with the changes and the implementation thereof.