{ "id": 4361965, "name": "MARVIN MCDONALD, CORNELIUS FORD, ANTHONY KOONCE, PERRY JONES, AARON PETTY, ANNIE POLK, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, A NORTH CAROLINA STATE AGENCY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN W. KELLER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; BOB BRINSON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "McDonald v. North Carolina Department of Correction", "decision_date": "2012-03-20", "docket_number": "No. COA11-1280", "first_page": "536", "last_page": "539", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 N.C. App. 536" } ], "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": "659 S.E.2d 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640826 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "764", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/659/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "492 S.E.2d 369", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "371-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11798906 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "136" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5307411 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "747" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793178 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E.2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "677", "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3)" }, { "page": "677" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 N.C. App. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551260 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80", "parenthetical": "citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/4/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "654" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "300 N.C. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561043 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/300/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E.2d 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571168 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563-64", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "540", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations and omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11432859 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87", "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations and omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 N.C. App. 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4156804 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "757", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/189/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 15, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(12)" }, { "page": "(12)" }, { "page": "(12)" }, { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "80-81" }, { "page": "(3)" }, { "page": "(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 467, "char_count": 8384, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1487183229601417 }, "sha256": "5e19eab13cda5c1e8141c3b015f93f902e02c534e75675484a636bda9aba8fc0", "simhash": "1:08e9aa54f2bfa684", "word_count": 1372 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:16:59.313771+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "MARVIN MCDONALD, CORNELIUS FORD, ANTHONY KOONCE, PERRY JONES, AARON PETTY, ANNIE POLK, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, A NORTH CAROLINA STATE AGENCY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN W. KELLER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; BOB BRINSON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BEASLEY, Judge.\nMarvin McDonald, Cornelius Ford, Anthony Koonce, Perry Jones, Aaron Petty, and Annie Polk (Plaintiffs) appeal the trial court\u2019s order granting N.C. Department of Correction, N.C. Department of Correction\u2014Management Information Systems, Alvin W. Keller, and Bob Brinson (Defendants) motion for judgment on the pleadings. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nPlaintiffs are inmates in the N.C. Department of Correction (DOC). On 10 December 2010, Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants. After Defendants filed an answer, both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. The case was heard on 4 April 2011 and the trial court granted Defendants\u2019 motion for judgment on the pleadings by order filed 9 May 2011. On 26 May 2011, Plaintiffs filed a timely notice of appeal.\nFirst, Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by declaring that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) was inapplicable to sentences imposed under structured sentencing. We disagree.\n\u201cThis Court reviews a trial court\u2019s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo.\u201d Carpenter v. Carpenter, 189 N.C. App. 755, 757, 659 S.E.2d 762, 764 (2008) (citation omitted). \u201cJudgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), is appropriate when all the material allegations of fact are admitted in the pleadings and only questions of law remain.\u201d Groves v. Community Hous. Corp., 144 N.C. App. 79, 87, 548 S.E.2d 535, 540 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citations and omitted).\nPlaintiffs assert that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(12) applies to the Structured Sentencing Act (the Act) where the Act fails to expressly define the term \u201cmonth.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(12) (2011) states,\n\u201cImprisonment for One Month,\u201d How Construed.\u2014The words \u201cimprisonment for one month,\u201d wherever used in any of the statutes, shall be construed to mean \u201cimprisonment for thirty days.\u201d\nPlaintiffs contend that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(12) limits the DOC\u2019s ability to convert sentences of a year or more. Currently, the DOC calculates every 12 month sentence into a calendar year which consists of 365 days. Under Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed interpretation of the statute, DOC is not permitted to convert months over a year into 365 days, but is limited to construing months into 30 day periods. Plaintiffs assert that sentences over 12 months, under this interpretation of the statute, should consist of 360 days (12 months x 30 days), not 365 days.\nWe must first note that\n[t]he functions of the court in regard to the punishment of crimes are to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, and, if that determination be one of guilt, then to pronounce the punishment or penalty prescribed by law. The execution of the sentence belongs to a different department of the government. The manner of executing the sentence and the mitigation of punishment are determined by the legislative department, and what the Legislature has determined in that regard must be put in force and effect by administrative officers.\nJernigan v. State, 279 N.C. 556, 563-64, 184 S.E.2d 259, 265 (1971) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Additionally, \u201cthe responsibility for determining the limits of statutory grants of authority to an administrative agency is a judicial function for the courts to perform.\u201d In re Community Association, 300 N.C. 267, 280, 266 S.E.2d 645, 654 (1980).\nDefendants argue, and we agree, that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3) controls and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) is inapplicable. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3) (2011) states,\nThe word \u201cmonth\u201d shall be construed to mean a calendar month, unless otherwise expressed; and the word \u201cyear,\u201d a calendar year, unless otherwise expressed. . . . When a statute refers to a period of one or more months and the last month does not have a date corresponding to the initial date, the period shall expire on the last day of the last month.\n\u201cIn North Carolina, when the word \u2018month\u2019 is used in our General Statutes it is to be construed to mean a calendar month, unless otherwise expressed.\u201d Kennedy v. Insurance Co., 4 N.C. App. 77, 80, 165 S.E.2d 676, 677 (1969) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3)). In Kennedy, this Court held that\nthe term \u2018thirty days\u2019 and the term \u2018one month\u2019 are not synonymous, although where the particular calendar month is composed of exactly thirty days the number of days involved happen to be the same. The word \u2018month\u2019 has a clear and well-defined meaning, and refers to a particular time. Unless an intention to the contrary is expressed, it signifies a calendar month, regardless of the number of days it contains.\nId. at 80-81, 165 S.E.2d at 677.\nPlaintiffs acknowledge the plain meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3), but argue that \u00a7 12-3(12) is also controlling in defining months. Plaintiffs argue that the two statutes should be \u201charmonized\u201d. We recognize the rule of statutory interpretation that states \u201c[w]here there is one statute dealing with a subject in general and comprehensive terms, and another dealing with a part of the same subject in a more minute and definite way, the two should be read together and harmonized[.]\u201d McIntyre v. McIntyre, 341 N.C. 629, 631, 461 S.E.2d 745, 747 (1995). We find the rule inapplicable in this case because we determine that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) does not deal with the same subject matter as N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3(3).\n\u201cWhere the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must construe the statute using its plain meaning.\u201d Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990). It is clear from the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) that the statute defines the term \u201cimprisonment for one month\u201d and does not define the term \u201cmonth\u201d. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) \u201cimprisonment for one month\u201d is used as a term of art. \u201cA complimentary rule of construction provides that when technical terms or terms of art are used in a statute, they are presumed to be used with their technical meaning in mind, likewise absent legislative intent to the contrary.\u201d Dare County Bd. of Educ. v. Sakaria, 127 N.C. App. 585, 588, 492 S.E.2d 369, 371-72 (1997). The statute expressly states that \u201c[t]he words \u2018imprisonment for one month,\u2019 wherever used in any of the statutes, shall be construed to mean \u201cimprisonment for thirty days.\u201d A plain reading of the statute shows that \u201cimprisonment for one month\u201d is a term of art and delineates that the thirty day rule is only to be used where the term of art is expressly used in the statutes. We decline to extend this narrow and specific definition outlined in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 12-3 (12) to a broader interpretation that was not intended by the Legislature. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order and Plaintiffs\u2019 argument is overruled.\nBecause Plaintiffs\u2019 second issue on appeal is based on the first issue, Plaintiffs\u2019 second issue on appeal is also overruled.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C. and STEPHENS concur.\n. Anthony Koonce and Annie Polk have been released from custody and Plaintiffs concede that their claims are moot.", "type": "majority", "author": "BEASLEY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., by Laura Grimaldi, for Plaintiff-Appellants.", "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for Defendant-Appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "MARVIN MCDONALD, CORNELIUS FORD, ANTHONY KOONCE, PERRY JONES, AARON PETTY, ANNIE POLK, Plaintiffs v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, A NORTH CAROLINA STATE AGENCY; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, A DIVISION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; ALVIN W. KELLER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; BOB BRINSON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, Defendants\nNo. COA11-1280\n(Filed 20 March 2012)\nSentencing\u2014structured sentencing\u2014definition of month\u2014 calendar month\nThe trial court did not err by declaring that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 12-3 (12), which defines \u201cimprisonment for one month\u201d as \u201cimprisonment for thirty days[,]\u201d was inapplicable to sentences imposed under structured sentencing. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 12-3(3), which construes the word \u201cmonth\u201d to mean a calendar month, controlled.\nAppeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 9 May 2011 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 February 2012.\nN.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Inc., by Laura Grimaldi, for Plaintiff-Appellants.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for Defendant-Appellees." }, "file_name": "0536-01", "first_page_order": 546, "last_page_order": 549 }