{
  "id": 8526895,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY BRYAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bryan",
  "decision_date": "1984-04-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 833SC752",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. App. 558"
    }
  ],
  "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": "306 S.E. 2d 100",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4761187
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "77"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564806
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0459-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3128,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.785,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.205580325339431
    },
    "sha256": "75be70f81b6a27e516af18207610792ac2e0831bd14dcb08b849810c70dd757b",
    "simhash": "1:01aed4cf8247dd33",
    "word_count": 514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:21.361774+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Braswell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY BRYAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s appeal calls into question only the correctness of the sentence imposed and the amount of restitution ordered by the court below.\nDefendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felonious breaking or entering and two counts of felonious larceny. This was done pursuant to a plea arrangement, in exchange for which the State dismissed other charges against him and consolidated the four remaining charges for judgment. Under the law as it was before G.S. 15A-1340.4(a) was amended effective October 1, 1983, the four consolidated charges, all Class H felonies with a presumptive term of three years and a maximum term of ten years, had to be treated as one offense for sentencing purposes. State v. Tolley, 271 N.C. 459, 156 S.E. 2d 858 (1967). Before sentencing the defendant to a term of eight years, the court found two factors in aggravation, one in mitigation, and that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factor. One of the factors in aggravation was that the offense of breaking or entering was committed for hire or pecuniary gain. Our Supreme Court has held that this factor can be properly found only when the evidence shows \u201cthat defendant was hired or paid to commit the crime.\u201d State v. Abdullah, 309 N.C. 63, 77, 306 S.E. 2d 100, 108 (1983). Since there was no such evidence in the present case, the finding was erroneous and defendant must be re-sentenced.\nBut the defendant\u2019s other contention that the court erred in requiring restitution for one of the victims of his lawless acts in the amount of $400 is without merit. The victim\u2019s coin-operated machines were out of operation for four months and the court found that that was the net amount lost as a consequence. This finding was based on the victim\u2019s estimate that the net business loss for the period involved was \u201cfour or five hundred dollars.\u201d Though the basis for the estimate was not fully stated, the defendant neither objected to this evidence nor attempted to diminish its effect by cross-examination. Under the circumstances, therefore, its weight was for the court, and it is sufficient to support the order entered.\nRemanded for re-sentencing.\nJudges Wells and Braswell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General Daniel C. Higgins, for the State.",
      "William Farrior Ward, III for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDY BRYAN\nNo. 833SC752\n(Filed 3 April 1984)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 pecuniary gain aggravating factor\nThe trial court erred in finding as an aggravating factor that an offense of breaking or entering was committed for hire or pecuniary gain where there was no evidence that defendant was hired or paid to commit the crime.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 142.3\u2014 work release \u2014 restitution as condition \u2014 supporting evidence\nThe evidence supported the trial court\u2019s recommendation that, as a condition of obtaining work release, defendant be required to make restitution of $400 to one of his victims.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, Herbert O., Ill, Judge. Judgment entered 23 February 1983 in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 January 1984.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General Daniel C. Higgins, for the State.\nWilliam Farrior Ward, III for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 592
}
