{
  "id": 8550333,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICK VAN MATRE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Matre",
  "decision_date": "1977-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7621SC625",
  "first_page": "309",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 309"
    }
  ],
  "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": "218 S.E. 2d 233",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551376
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 S.E. 2d 645",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552264
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0484-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3315,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.65,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.784136529380868e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49589860258262164
    },
    "sha256": "1d47825d8df06ee5d128cba4ac274fcda0838e5fe38a92647843db1d750d6370",
    "simhash": "1:adabc32716b5fabf",
    "word_count": 520
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:52.366891+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICK VAN MATRE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nA \u201cyouthful offender\u201d is defined in G.S. 148-49.2 as a person under the age of 21 at the time of conviction. There is a marked distinction between a \u201cyouthful offender\u201d and a \u201ccommitted youthful offender.\u201d\nG.S. 148-49.2, a part of Article 3A, Chapter 148, General Statutes of North Carolina, defines a \u201ccommitted youthful offender\u201d as \u201cone committed to the custody of the Secretary of Correction under the provisions of this Article.\u201d Article 3A provides for an extensive program of treatment, study and release for the \u201ccommitted youthful offender,\u201d a program which is not available to a regular \u201cyouthful offender.\u201d The purposes of Article 3A \u201care to improve the chances of correction, rehabilitation and successful return to the community of youthful offenders . . . . \u201d G.S. 148-49.1.\nThis Court first considered the role of the trial court in sentencing a person under the age of 21 at the time of a conviction in State v. Mitchell, 24 N.C. App. 484, 211 S.E. 2d 645 (1975), holding that G.S. 148-49.4 required that the sentencing judge could not sentence a \u201cyouthful offender\u201d under any other applicable penalty provision unless the court finds that the youthful offender will \u201cnot derive benefit from treatment and supervision\u201d as a committed youthful offender pursuant to Article 3A, Chapter 148. See also State v. Worthington, 27 N.C. App. 167, 218 S.E. 2d 233 (1975).\nWe reject the contention of the State that any sentence of imprisonment upon a \u201cyouthful offender\u201d without a finding that he would not derive benefit from a committed youthful offender sentence automatically constitutes a committed youthful offender sentence under G.S. Chapter 148, Article 3A. The judgment of the trial court, which is the basis of the defendant\u2019s commitment to the Department of Corrections, must conform to the sentencing statutes so as to accurately reflect the intended sentence.\nSince the trial court did not sentence the youthful offender defendant as a \u201ccommitted youthful offender\u201d and did not find that defendant will not derive benefit from treatment and supervision as a committed youthful offender, the judgment is vacated and this cause is remanded for proceedings and resen-tencing consistent with this opinion.\nJudgment vacated and remanded.\nJudges Vaughn and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway for the State.",
      "W. Joseph Burns for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICK VAN MATRE\nNo. 7621SC625\n(Filed 2 February 1977)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 134\u2014 youthful offender \u2014 finding required prior to sentencing\nThe trial court erred in sentencing the youthful offender defendant as one other than a \u201ccommitted youthful offender\u201d without first finding that defendant would derive no benefit from treatment and supervision as a committed youthful offender. G.S. 148-49.4.\nON writ of certiorari to review proceedings before Graham, Judge. Judgment entered 25 May 1976 in Superior Court, FOR-SYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January 1977.\nDefendant, then 16 years old, pled guilty to two charges of armed robbery. The court consolidated the two charges for judgment and imposed sentence of imprsonment \u201cfor the term of twenty (20) years in the custody of the State Dept, of Correction.\u201d Defendant\u2019s petition for certiorari was allowed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway for the State.\nW. Joseph Burns for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0309-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 338
}