{
  "id": 8521543,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM MAURICE FARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Farris",
  "decision_date": "1993-07-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 9226SC822",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "256",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 5544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.746,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.326647750613137e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9428918442735464
    },
    "sha256": "463d41072127dd67f0fd634f5a94989fed3c600d79d2787230133cd588df1192",
    "simhash": "1:326d91f21d4b6ce2",
    "word_count": 882
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:55.768244+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and WYNN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM MAURICE FARRIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nWilliam Maurice Farris (defendant) appeals from judgment and commitment to a term of six years and nine months imprisonment upon revocation of his probation.\nDefendant pled guilty to one count of sale of cocaine pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-95 and was sentenced on 30 July 1990 to a term of seven years in prison, suspended, and placed on five years of supervised probation. Among the conditions of his probation were the requirements that he perform community service, abide by a curfew, remain drug free, and submit to tests to determine whether he had used any drugs. On 11 April 1991, defendant\u2019s probation officer submitted to the trial court a violation report citing several violations of the terms of probation. The trial court, on 31 May 1991, modified the original judgment by placing defendant on special probation, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1351, and committing him to the custody of the sheriff for a period of ninety days. The order retained the earlier conditions of defendant\u2019s probation.\nOn 9 December 1991 and 20 February 1992, after defendant had satisfied his ninety-day commitment, his probation officer filed separate violation reports, each citing numerous violations of the terms of defendant\u2019s special probation. On 22 May 1992, the trial court found that defendant had violated conditions of his probation, revoked the probation and sentenced defendant to six years and nine months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction.\nDefendant appeals, arguing that the trial court\u2019s failure to give defendant credit for ninety days of time served violates the credit requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-196.1.\nThe dispositive issue is whether a defendant who has served, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1351, an active sentence as a condition of special probation is entitled to credit for that time on any sentence imposed upon revocation of probation.\nIt is without question that a defendant receiving a term of imprisonment is entitled to a credit for time \u201cspent, committed to . . . any State or local correctional . . . institution as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence\u201d when the time in custody was \u201cpending trial.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-196.1 (1983). The State contends, however, that a defendant is not entitled to a credit for time served as a condition of special probation because this imprisonment is \u201cpost-trial,\u201d and as such is not within the scope of Section 15-196.1. We disagree.\nIn pertinent part, Section 15-196.1 provides that\na sentence shall be credited with . . . the total amount of time a defendant has spent, committed to or in confinement in any State or local correctional, mental or other institution as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence. The credit provided shall be calculated from the date custody under the charge commenced ....\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-196.1.\nThere is no language in Section 15-196.1 which requires credit be given only for imprisonment served pre-trial. In fact, the examples given in the statute of the situations where a defendant must be given credit include \u201ctime spent in custody pending . . . trial de novo, appeal, retrial, . . . parole and probation revocation hearing.\u201d Id. In each of these examples, the custody for which credit is required is post-trial. Furthermore, a literal reading of the statute supports defendant\u2019s contention that credit is required for the ninety-day sentence he served because it came \u201cas a result of\u201d the \u201ccharge[s]\u201d originated against defendant, which charges \u201cculminated in the sentence [of six years and nine months].\u201d Thus, a defendant who has served, pursuant to special probation, an active sentence, is entitled to credit for that time on any sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a credit on the sentence imposed.\nThe fact that Judge Burroughs reduced defendant\u2019s original seven year sentence to six years and nine months, a total reduction of ninety days, does not satisfy the requirement that the defendant be given a ninety-day credit. A credit reduces \u201cthe time required to attain privileges . . . which are dependent . . . upon the passage of a specific length of time in custody,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-196.3 (1983), and a reduction in the sentence term did not accomplish that purpose. Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the trial court for amendment of the judgment granting the defendant ninety days of credit.\nRemanded.\nJudges JOHNSON and WYNN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Timothy D. Nifong, for the State.",
      "Public Defender Isabel Scott Day, by Assistant Public Defender Kathleen M. Arundell, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM MAURICE FARRIS\nNo. 9226SC822\n(Filed 20 July 1993)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 1442 (NCI4th)\u2014 probation revocation \u2014 credit for active sentence on special probation\nA defendant who has served an active ninety-day sentence as a condition of special probation pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1351 is entitled to credit for that time on the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation. The fact that the trial judge reduced defendant\u2019s original seven-year sentence to six years and nine months, a reduction of ninety days, does not satisfy the requirement that defendant be given a ninety-day credit. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 15-196.1, 15-196.3.\nAm Jur 2d, Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 547 et seq., 578, 621.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 22 May 1992 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court by Judge Robert M. Burroughs. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June 1993.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Timothy D. Nifong, for the State.\nPublic Defender Isabel Scott Day, by Assistant Public Defender Kathleen M. Arundell, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 286
}