{
  "id": 8556587,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID FIELDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Fields",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7127SC359",
  "first_page": "708",
  "last_page": "711",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 708"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 730",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567119
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0730-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 7007,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.753017646974785
    },
    "sha256": "73cc3c2002cff2c45e9a09907313da0e3f6f9df891683a176cee4677c9d4c55a",
    "simhash": "1:83c1d431cc9942ee",
    "word_count": 1128
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID FIELDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MALLARD, Chief Judge.\nThe defendant\u2019s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the defendant had wilfully and intentionally violated the terms of the probationary judgments is without merit.\nDefendant contends that the sentence for non-support should run concurrently with the other sentences. The Attorney General does not disagree. When the defendant was sentenced on the charge of non-support of his minor children, the trial judge did not provide that the sentence was to run consecutively. In the case at bar separate sentences were pronounced on each of the three charges. In each of the sentences the defendant was sentenced to \u201cGaston County Jail, to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Department of Correction of North Carolina.\u201d We hold that the six-months sentence on the non-support charge runs concurrently with the other sentences. See G.S. 15-6.2. In State v. Efird, 271 N.C. 730, 157 S.E. 2d 538 (1967), the Supreme Court said:\n\u201cSeparate judgments, each imposing a prison sentence, were pronounced. Each judgment is complete within itself. Absent an order to the contrary, these sentences run concurrently as a matter of law.\u201d\nWe do not interpret the provisions of G.S. 15-200 (providing that the judge \u201cshall proceed to deal with the case as if there had been no probation or suspension of sentence\u201d) as statutory authority for the judge, at a probation revocation hearing, to order the sentence imposed by the trial judge to run consecutively with some other sentence unless the trial judge ordered it at the time the sentence was imposed. To do. so would permit the hearing judge to increase the severity of the punishment imposed by the trial judge.\nAlso in G.S. 15-200.1, relating to appeals from a probationary or suspended sentence revocation of a court inferior to the superior court, there appears the following language:\n\u201cUpon its finding that the conditions were violated, the superior court shall enforce the judgment of the lower court unless the judge finds as a fact that circumstances and conditions surrounding the terms of the probation and the violation thereof have substantially changed, so that enforcement of the judgment of the lower court would not accord justice to the defendant, in which case the judge may modify or revoke the terms of the probationary or suspended sentence in the court\u2019s discretion.\u201d\nIn the case at bar there is no finding as a fact by Superior Court Judge Thornburg that circumstances and conditions surrounding the terms of the defendant\u2019s probation and the violation thereof have substantially changed so that the enforcement of the judgment of the trial judge would not accord justice to the defendant. There was no factual basis for any change in the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Therefore, it was error for Judge Thornburg, after finding that the conditions were violated, to do anything other than \u201cenforce the judgment of the lower court.\u201d We do not reach or decide the question as to whether, under proper findings, the word \u201cmodify\u201d in this statute is authority for a judge, after a revocation hearing, to increase the punishment. Suffice to say, in Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1968), \u201cmodify\u201d means \u201cto make more temperate and less extreme: lessen the severity of: Moderate.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error \u201cthat it is cruel and unusual punishment for the State of North Carolina not to furnish the defendant, who is an indigent, an appearance bond in the amount set by the Court\u201d is overruled.\nThe commitment issued in case no. 69-CR-21587 is ordered stricken, and this cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Gaston County with instructions that an order issue directing that the sentence in case no. 69-CR-21587 is to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the case bearing docket no. 69-CR-18245.\nThere is no error in the cases bearing docket no. 69-CR-18245 and docket no. 69-CR-17848.\nRemanded with directions.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MALLARD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan and Staff Attorney Eatman for the State.",
      "William G. Holland for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM DAVID FIELDS\nNo. 7127SC359\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 140\u2014 imposition of punishment \u2014 concurrent sentences\nA sentence imposed upon defendant\u2019s conviction of nonsupport runs concurrently with two consolidated sentences that were imposed two days earlier upon defendant\u2019s conviction of other offenses, where the trial judge did not provide that the nonsupport sentence was to run consecutively with the other sentences. G.S. 15-6.2.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 140 \u2014 concurrent or consecutive sentences \u2014 effect of probation revocation statute\nThe statute authorizing the judge in a probation revocation hearing \u201cto deal with the case as if there had been no probation or suspension of sentence\u201d does not authorize the judge, when activating sentences of imprisonment, to make consecutive those sentences of imprisonment which run concurrently as a matter of law. G.S. 15-200.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36\u2014 cruel and unusual punishment \u2014 failure of State to furnish appearance bond to indigent\nFailure of the State to furnish an indigent defendant an appearance bond in the amount set by the court is not cruel and unusual punishment.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge, 8 February 1971 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.\nOn 13 January 1970 in district court in case no. 69-CE-18245, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of non-felonious breaking and entering and was given a two-year prison sentence. On the same date in case no. 69-CE-17848, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the possession of narcotics and illegal drugs and was given a two-year prison sentence. Both cases were consolidated in one probationary judgment. The two sentences were ordered to run consecutively, and they were suspended for five years.\nOn 15 January 1970 in district court in case no. 69-CR-21587, the defendant entered a plea of guilty of failing to support his minor children and was given a six-months prison sentence which was suspended for five years. He was placed on probation on the conditions1 set out in the probationary judgment.\nOn 6 August 1970 a probation violation warrant and order for capias was entered on both of the probationary judgments. On 13 January 1971, after a hearing, an order was entered by the district judge revoking the probation in all three cases and ordering the six-months sentence \u201cto run at the expiration of the sentences entered in Docket Nos. 69-CR-18245 and 69-CR-17848.\u201d\nThe defendant appealed to the superior court. After a hearing Judge Thornburg found that the defendant had wilfully violated the terms of the probationary judgments, ordered the prison sentences into effect, and ordered the six-months sentence in no. 69-CR-21587 \u201cto run at the expiration of the sentences entered in Docket Nos. 69-CR-18425 and 69-CR-17848.\u201d The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Morgan and Staff Attorney Eatman for the State.\nWilliam G. Holland for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0708-01",
  "first_page_order": 732,
  "last_page_order": 735
}