In the Interest of N.M. (E.M. v State)

E.M. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It affirmed as to the juvenile court’s refusal to accept the parties’ stipulation that permanent guardianship instead of adoption should be the goal of this proceeding as determining the best interests of the child is a core authority that cannot be stipulated away and the court here acted within its power to require the parties to present evidence on the issues. It held any error in denying the state’s motion o dismiss the termination petition was harmless as the record demonstrates the juvenile court would not have granted permanent guardianship instead of terminating E.M.’s rights.

State v Hill

Hill appealed his burglary and theft convictions. The panel affirmed. It held Hill’s motion for a new trial base don ineffective assistance of counsel was properly denied because subpoenaing the alleged accomplice would have been futile given the accomplice’s refusal to appear under a state issued subpoena, choosing to not introduced a forged email was sound trial strategy and Hill did not assert he was prejudiced by the failure to introduce the accomplices statement to the police.