{
  "id": 8525457,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: RALEIGH WARREN PHILLIPS",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Phillips",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8317DC479",
  "first_page": "468",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "66 N.C. App. 468"
    }
  ],
  "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": "303 S.E. 2d 660",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524309
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/63/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 709",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 522",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554164
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0522-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.823,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033274526816043
    },
    "sha256": "ffe5028ab2e303176aa424ec49e0093c9e81c4490570f58a84669d63045de7e8",
    "simhash": "1:8aa9ff457ec1bc06",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: RALEIGH WARREN PHILLIPS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nSince its only support is an express finding of fact that the car damage amounted to $232.17, the order requiring the respondent to pay restitution in the amount of $500 cannot stand. Though it may be, as the State contends, that the court intended to find only that the out of pocket expenses incurred by the owner amounted to $232.17 and did not intend to find that the damages were only in that amount, we cannot rewrite the finding to so state, but are bound by the finding made. Though in handling juvenile cases the courts are allowed considerable leeway and detailed findings are not usually required, In re Steele, 20 N.C. App. 522, 201 S.E. 2d 709 (1974), juveniles, as other litigants, are nevertheless entitled to due process and judgments rendered against them contrary to law must fail. In re Mash, 63 N.C. App. 130, 303 S.E. 2d 660 (1983).\nBut because of the irreconcilable conflict between the court\u2019s finding of fact and order, the court is directed to reconsider both and correct either or both, as the evidence and the court\u2019s appraisal of it warrants. In doing so, however, heed should be taken of the following: Restitution, from its very nature and meaning, is necessarily limited to the amount lost, or damage done, which amount, however, as the law of damages makes plain, is neither governed by nor limited to the amount of expenses that the owners incurred. G.S. 7A-649(2) requires that joint and several liability for the loss sustained be imposed on all juvenile contributors to the damage if all the participants have or can reasonably acquire the means to make restitution. And under Article IX, Section 7 of our Constitution fines and penalties cannot be given to the owners of damaged property, but must go to the school fund.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Arnold and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.",
      "W. David White for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: RALEIGH WARREN PHILLIPS\nNo. 8317DC479\n(Filed 7 February 1984)\nInfants \u00a7 20\u2014 juvenile delinquent \u2014 erroneous restitution order\nThe trial court erred in ordering a juvenile to pay restitution of $500.00 for damages to a car where the court found as a fact that the car damage amounted only to $232.17.\nAPPEAL by respondent from Clark, Fo-y, Judge. Order entered 25 February 1983 in District Court, SURRY County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 1983.\nRespondent was charged with being a delinquent juvenile within the meaning of G.S. 7A-517(12). Evidence at the hearing showed that respondent and another juvenile stole a Ford Pinto, drove it around some, and had an accident, which damaged the car.\nAt the hearing the owner of the car testified that he bought it the day before the theft for $600, but estimated that it was damaged in the amount of $1,000. The trial court\u2019s only finding of fact with respect to the car damage was as follows:\n[Tjhat damages to the vehicle are found to be as follows: $25.00 \u2014 wrecker service, $57.21 \u2014 fly wheel, $2.56 \u2014 new seal, $75.00 \u2014 transmission, $60.00 \u2014 labor, $13.40 \u2014 tune-up for a total of $232.17.\nBut in its Juvenile Disposition Order, pursuant to G.S. 7A-649, the court ordered the respondent to pay restitution to the car owner in the amount of $500. A similar order was entered against the other juvenile.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert E. Cansler, for the State.\nW. David White for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0468-01",
  "first_page_order": 500,
  "last_page_order": 502
}