Preview:

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

NO. COA11-1010 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: JEANIE BAKER Petitioner/Plaintiff v. DAVID BAKER Respondent/Defendant Guilford County No. 11 CVD 5329 7 February 2012

Appeal by defendant from order entered 14 April 2011 by Judge Jan H. Samet in Guilford County District Court. the Court of Appeals 10 January 2012. The Law Office of John W. Kirkman, Jr., by John W. Kirkman, Jr., and Adam W. Arthur, for plaintiff. Moshera Mills, for defendant. THIGPEN, Judge. David Baker ("Defendant") appeals from a domestic violence protective order. err in entering Because we conclude the trial court did not the domestic violence protective order, we Heard in

affirm. On Complaint 6 April and 2011, Jeanie Baker ("Plaintiff") filed a

Motion

for

Domestic

Violence

Protective

Order

-2("Complaint") against Defendant, her husband. In her Complaint,

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant came into her home extremely intoxicated and uninvited on 2 April 2011; that Defendant

threatened Plaintiff's son-in-law and his friend earlier in the evening; that Plaintiff asked Defendant to leave but he refused; and that Defendant grabbed Plaintiff when she said she would call 911. The trial court filed an Ex Parte Domestic Violence

Order of Protection on 6 April 2011. After a hearing, on 14 April 2011 the trial court entered a Domestic Violence Order of Protection ("DVOP") to remain in

effect until 14 April 2012.

In the DVOP, the trial court found

as fact that on 3 April 2012,1 Defendant "attempted to cause bodily injury to the plaintiff" and placed Plaintiff "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury[.]" The trial court also found:

On the morning of April 3, 2011 at approximately 1:45 a.m. Defendant having been told not to come to [Plaintiff's] residence, came to the residence in a highly intoxicated state. When told to leave [Defendant] refused and went and sat down in Defendant correctly notes the trial court erroneously stated the year of the domestic violence incident as 2012 rather than 2011. However, we believe the trial court merely committed a harmless typographical error. The trial court subsequently noted the correct date of the incident as 2011 on the DVOP, and it is clear from our review of the record that the incident occurred in 2011, rather than in 2012. Thus, Defendant suffered no prejudice as a result of this minor typographical error.
1

-3[Plaintiff's] living room. [Defendant] ha[d] previously while at a nightclub returned his wedding ring to [Plaintiff] [,] called her a whore and said it was all over. He struggled with [Plaintiff] over delivery of the keys to [Plaintiff's] car. . . . [Unreadable] and assault[ed] her when she attempt[ed] to call 911 to have [Defendant] removed. The trial court concluded against Defendant the "has committed and acts of

domestic

violence

plaintiff[,]"

ordered

him,

inter alia, not to commit any further acts or threats of abuse and to have no contact with Plaintiff. the DVOP. Defendant essentially contends the trial court erred in Defendant appeals from

entering the DVOP because the findings of fact are not supported by sufficient evidence, and the findings of fact do not support the conclusion of law that an act of domestic violence occurred. We disagree. "Where the trial court sits as the finder of fact, and where different reasonable inferences can be drawn from the

evidence, the determination of which reasonable inferences shall be drawn is for the trial court." App. 646, 651, 513 S.E.2d 589, Brandon v. Brandon, 132 N.C. 593 (1999) (quotation and

quotation marks omitted).

"Accordingly, where the trial court's

findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, they are

-4binding on appeal." omitted). Id. at 652, 513 S.E.2d at 593 (citation

Furthermore, "[t]he trial court's findings of fact Id. at 653, 513 S.E.2d at

must support its conclusions of law." 594 (citation omitted).

North Carolina General Statutes

Download 11-1010.pdf

South Carolina Law