{
  "id": 8526038,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY THOMAS ARNETTE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Arnette",
  "decision_date": "1984-03-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 834SC869",
  "first_page": "194",
  "last_page": "196",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. App. 194"
    }
  ],
  "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": "277 S.E. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "423"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 N.C. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571388
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/303/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 855",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "857"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551049
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0418-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 5079,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.764,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.704233622947175e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4932314586680536
    },
    "sha256": "bc1f5cc99875a2e5640301b85267806983b4dfccb4613a7fcde05e2ed104d76d",
    "simhash": "1:c8295d1ea673befa",
    "word_count": 799
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:21.361774+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HEDRICK and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY THOMAS ARNETTE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nG.S. 148-57.1(c) mandates that when an active sentence is imposed, \u201cthe court shall consider whether . . . restitution or reparation should be ordered or recommended to the Parole Commission to be imposed as a condition of parole.\u201d This statute further provides that such order or recommendation \u201cshall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of G.S. 15A-1343(d).\u201d G.S. 15A-1343(d), which pertains to \u201cRestitution as a Condition of Probation,\u201d requires that, \u201c[w]hen restitution or reparation is a condition imposed, the court shall take into consideration the resources of the defendant, his ability to earn, his obligation to support dependents, and such other matters as shall pertain to his ability to make restitution or reparation.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the sentencing judge erred in not considering the factors set out in G.S. 15A-1343(d) before recommending restitution as a condition of work release or parole. We do not agree. We note that the 1982 order denying appropriate relief speaks in terms of the court \u201cordering\u201d restitution. But the 1980 judgment recites: \u201cAs to restitution or reparation as a condition of attaining work release privilege or parole, the Court recommends: That the defendant make restitution in the amount of sixty-two thousand five hundred dollars ($62,500.00). . . .\u201d The judge here merely recommended restitution as a condition of work release or parole, as authorized by G.S. 148-57.1(c). Only if restitution was a \u201ccondition imposed\u201d would there be a statutory requirement that the trial judge make findings as to the factors enumerated in G.S. 15A-1343(d).\nNeither the Parole Commission nor the Department of Correction is bound by the judge\u2019s recommendation of restitution as a condition of parole or work release. State v. Lambert, 40 N.C. App. 418, 420, 252 S.E. 2d 855, 857 (1979). When the time comes that restitution may be imposed as a condition of parole, the Parole Commission must give defendant notice that restitution is being considered as a condition of parole and an opportunity to be heard. G.S. 148-57.1(d). The Department of Correction must follow this same procedure before restitution may be imposed as a condition of work release. G.S. 148-33.2(d). Such a hearing is the proper forum for determination of defendant\u2019s ability to pay restitution. There is no statutory requirement for a sentencing judge to inquire into a defendant\u2019s ability to pay restitution when the judge merely recommends restitution as a condition of parole or work release.\nThe defendant further contends that the judge\u2019s recommendations regarding restitution deny him the equal protection of the laws. We do not agree. A requirement that a defendant pay restitution as a condition of parole or work release is not inherently unconstitutional. State v. Parton, 303 N.C. 55, 74, 277 S.E. 2d 410, 423 (1981). The constitutionality of a reparation requirement may only be determined by considering defendant\u2019s financial status at the time when restitution may be paid. Id. Because restitution has not been imposed as a condition of parole or work release, there has been no equal protection violation here. The constitutionality of a reparation requirement may only be considered if and when restitution is ordered.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HEDRICK and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William F. Briley, for the State.",
      "Timothy W. Howard for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY THOMAS ARNETTE\nNo. 834SC869\n(Filed 6 March 1984)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 142.3, 145.5\u2014 recommendation of restitution as condition of work release or parole \u2014no requirement for sentencing judge to inquire into defendant\u2019s ability to pay\nThere was no statutory requirement for the sentencing judge to inquire into defendant\u2019s ability to pay restitution of $62,500.00 where the judge merely recommended restitution as a condition of his parole or work release. Neither the Parole Commission nor the Department of Correction is bound by the judge\u2019s recommendation of restitution as condition of parole or work release. G.S. 148-57.1(c) and (d); G.S. 15A-1343(d) and G.S. 148-33.2(d).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Rouse, Judge. Judgment entered 12 November 1980 in Superior Court, SAMPSON County. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals allowed on 27 January 1983. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 February 1984.\nDefendant entered a plea of guilty to having unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, and wantonly set fire to and burned an uninhabited house. Defendant was sentenced, on 12 November 1980, to a term of imprisonment of not less than twenty-nine years nor more than thirty years, and the sentencing judge recommended that defendant make restitution in the amount of $62,500.00 as a condition of work release or parole. On 16 September 1982, defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief, contending that the judge\u2019s recommendations regarding restitution were improper and should be dismissed. This motion was denied in an order dated 18 November 1982. From this order, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William F. Briley, for the State.\nTimothy W. Howard for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0194-01",
  "first_page_order": 226,
  "last_page_order": 228
}