{ "id": 8562498, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ABRAM C. CAUDLE, III", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Caudle", "decision_date": "1970-05-13", "docket_number": "No. 42", "first_page": "550", "last_page": "556", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "276 N.C. 550" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "7 N.C. App. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549324 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/7/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625045 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626450 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E. 1011", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655961 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 2d 842", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626261 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 S.E. 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C.. 804", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654093 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/117/0804-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623296 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0049-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 922", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611437 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559707 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 758", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 53", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568006 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 49", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628148 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603852 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 495", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598133 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 203", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614610 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 297", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 462", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628227 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0462-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559735 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622192 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "285" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626450 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0248-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 653, "char_count": 16892, "ocr_confidence": 0.583, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.648997798004453e-07, "percentile": 0.9711610599691334 }, "sha256": "03afb3653c0ce0af2b38f146c401cd5921feaf2a8380de51c62e9e28d6ed7e9d", "simhash": "1:1ab94739b6af5c7b", "word_count": 2860 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:31.974326+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ABRAM C. CAUDLE, III" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LAKE, J.\nThe record presents this-question: Assuming the failure of the defendant to make the payments to the bank was wilful and without lawful excuse, may the sentence to jail be placed into effect for this failure? We hold that it may not.\nThe Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, \u00a7 16, provides, \u201cThere shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State, except in cases of fraud.\u201d The defendant, charged with the use of a revoked bank credit card with intent to defraud the bank, entered a plea of guilty. Nothing else appearing, the foregoing provision of the Constitution would not prevent his imprisonment for such conduct. However, the court which imposed the sentence to imprisonment suspended the sentence upon three specified conditions, to which the defendant consented.\n\u201cWhere a sentence in a criminal case is suspended upon certain valid conditions expressed in the sentence imposed, the prisoner has a right to rely upon such conditions, and so long as he complies therewith the sentence should stand.\u201d State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 285, 103 S.E. 2d 376. Accord: State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 145 S.E. 2d 327; State v. Rogers, 221 N.C. 462, 20 S.E. 2d 297. A defendant, having consented, expressly or by implication, to the suspension, upon specified conditions, of an otherwise valid sentence to imprisonment, may not thereafter attack the validity of an order putting such sentence into effect, entered after due notice and hearing, except: (1) On the ground that there is no evidence to support a finding of a breach of the conditions of suspension; or (2) on the ground that the condition which he has broken is invalid because it is unreasonable or is imposed for an unreasonable length of time. State v. Cole, 241 N.C. 576, 86 S.E. 2d 203; State v. Smith, 233 N.C. 68, 62 S.E. 2d 495; State v. Miller, 225 N.C. 213, 34 S.E. 2d 143. The defendant's consent to the suspension of the prison sentence does not, however, preclude him from contesting the reasonableness of the condition which he has broken, when such breach is made the ground for-putting the prison sentence into effect. State v. Griffin, 246 N.C. 680, 100 S.E. 2d 49. As to the right of such defendant to challenge in the subsequent proceeding the validity of the condition upon which sentence was suspended, see also: State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476; State v. Dimean, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53; State v, Seagraves, supra; State v. Robinson, supra. General statements found in State v. Collins, 247 N.C. 248, 100 S.E. 2d 492, and in State v. Henderson, 207 N.C. 258, 176 S.E. 758, to the effect that a defendant,, having accepted a suspended sentence without appeal, cannot thereafter attack the validity of the conditions of such suspension, are in conflict with this well established rule and are, therefore, not approved. A condition which is a violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional right, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to impose-,, is per se unreasonable and subject to attack by the defendant upon the State\u2019s subsequent motion to put the sentence into effect for violation of that condition. See: State v. Rhinehart, 267 N.C. 470, 14& S.E. 2d 651; State v. Doughtie, 237 N.C. 368, 74 S.E. 2d 922; Myers v. Barnhardt, 202 N.C. 49, 161 S.E. 715; State v. Whitt, 117 N.C.. 804, 23 S.E. 452.\nThis Court has recognized the authority of the trial court to impose a prison sentence and suspend the same upon condition that the defendant make compensatory payments to the person injured by\" his criminal act. See: State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Simmington, 235 N.C. 612, 70 S.E. 2d 842; Myers v. Barnhardt, supra; State v. Whitt, supra. In the Simmington case, the Court said that the question of whether the activation of a prison sentence for the defendant\u2019s failure to make such compensatory payments amounted to imprisonment for debt in violation of the above quoted constitutional provision was not before it, but then went on to sustain the order-activating the sentence, saying, \u201cWhen he is imprisoned, he will be-imprisoned for his breach of the criminal law and not for the failure-to pay damages.\u201d\nWe have found no decision of this Court sustaining an order-putting into effect a prison sentence for the failure of the defendant to pay obligations incurred by him otherwise than as the result of the act for which he was originally convicted, with the exception of the obligation imposed by law for the support of the defendant\u2019s wife or child. In our opinion, it is not sufficient to say, as was said in State v. Simmington, supra, that when such defendant is imprisoned he will be imprisoned for his criminal act and not for his nonpayment of his debt. The purpose of the above quoted provision of our Constitution was to prevent the use of the criminal process to enforce the payment of civil obligations, directly or indirectly. To suspend a sentence of imprisonment for a criminal act, however just the sentence may be per se, on condition that the defendant pay obligations unrelated to such criminal act, however justly owing, is a use of the criminal process to enforce the payment of a civil obligation and lends itself to the oppressive action which the provision of the Constitution was designed to forbid. To sustain the suspension of sentence upon such a condition would invite misuse of the practice of suspending sentence. It would substitute for the humane consideration and the objective of reformation, upon which the practice ought to rest, an entirely different purpose. See: State v. Hilton, 151 N.C. 687, 65 S.E. 1011; State v. Doughtie, supra.\nIn the present case, the sentence of imprisonment was suspended upon three conditions: (1) Payment of a fine and costs; (2) payment \u201cof $7,326.29 for the use and benefit of North Carolina National Bank\u201d; and (3) remaining on general good behavior and not violating any criminal law of the State. It is not contended that the first or the third of these conditions has been broken by the defendant. He has now been ordered to jail because he has not paid the sum of money which, presumably, he lawfully and justly owes the bank. There is nothing whatever in this record to show that such indebtedness, over and above the $631.78 mentioned in the warrant, was contracted fraudulently or that it grew out of the defendant\u2019s use of the bank credit card. It is obvious from the face of the warrant upon which the defendant was tried that the major part of this indebtedness was not created by the criminal acts to which the defendant entered his plea of guilty. If, indeed, this indebtedness, or any part thereof, arose out of some other use of the credit card issued by the bank to this defendant, which use was a violation of the criminal law, the right of the State to try the defendant therefor upon proper criminal process is not before us in this case.\nWe do not have before us for determination the validity of the statutory provision that a series of independent and unrelated misuses of a bank credit card, each constituting a misdemeanor within itself, will, in their totality, constitute a felony, if they all occurred within a specified period of time. See: G.S. 14-113.13; G.S. 14-113.17. It is also unnecessary to determine in this case whether the process upon which the defendant \u2022 is charged with the violation of G.S. 14-113.13 must charge each wrongful use of the card in a separate count.\nThe sole question before us is whether the second condition upon which the defendant\u2019s sentence was suspended is valid. We hold it is not and, therefore, the order of the Superior Court putting the prison sentence into effect because of his breach of this condition was error and must be vacated, irrespective of wilfulness or want of lawful excuse for the breach of the condition.\nThe Court of Appeals was in error in remanding this matter to the Superior Court for further hearing. It should have simply vacated the order of the Superior Court which put the prison sentence into effect, without prejudice to the right of the State to move for activation of the sentence if the defendant has violated, or hereafter violates, the third condition upon which the sentence was originally suspended. The matter is hereby remanded to the Court of Appeals-for the entry of a judgment in accordance with this opinion.\nError and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "LAKE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan and Christine Y. Denson, Staff Attorney, for the State.", "John W. Hinsdale for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ABRAM C. CAUDLE, III\nNo. 42\n(Filed 13 May 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 14.3\u2014 suspended sentence \u2014 right of defendant to rely on conditions of suspension\nWhere a sentence in a criminal case is suspended upon certain valid conditions expressed in the sentence imposed, the defendant has a right to rely upon such conditions, and so long as he complies therewith the sentence should stand.\n3.Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 consent to suspension of sentence \u2014 attack on validity of activation of suspended sentence\nA defendant who expressly or impliedly consents to the suspension upon specified conditions of an otherwise valid sentence to imprisonment may not thereafter attack the validity of an order putting such sentence into effect, entered after due notice and hearing, except (1) on the ground that there is no evidence to support a finding of a breach of the conditions of suspension, or (2) on the ground that the condition which he has broken is invalid because it is unreasonable or is imposed for an unreasonable length of time.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 consent to suspension of sentence \u2014 attack on reasonableness of breached condition\nDefendant\u2019s consent to the suspension of a prison sentence does not preclude him rrom contesting the reasonableness of the condition which he has broken when such breach is made the ground for putting the prison sentence into effect. Statements to the contrary in State v. Collins, 247 N.C. 248, and State v. Henderson, 207 N.C. 258, are disapproved.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 suspended sentence \u2014 condition which violates defendant\u2019s constitutional right\nA condition which is a violation of the defendant\u2019s constitutional right, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to impose, is per se unreasonable and subject to attack by the defendant upon the State\u2019s subsequent motion to put the sentence into effect for violation of that condition.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 143; Constitutional Law \u00a7 31\u2014 suspension of sentence \u2014 payment of obligations unrelated to the crime \u2014 imprisonment for debt\nSuspension of a sentence of imprisonment for a criminal act on condition that the defendant pay obligations unrelated to such criminal act, however justly owing, is a use of the criminal process to enforce payment of a civil obligation in violation of Article I, \u00a7 16, Constitution of North Carolina.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 143; Constitutional Law \u00a7 31\u2014 credit card fraud \u2014 suspension of sentence \u2014 payment of amount to bank in excess of that charged in warrant \u2014 imprisonment for debt\nWhere defendant was charged in a warrant with obtaining goods and services valued at $631.78 by use of a revoked bank credit card with intent to defraud the bank of that sum, condition of suspension of the sentence imposed upon defendant\u2019s plea of guilty of non-felonious credit card fraud that defendant make payment of $7,326.29 for use and benefit of the bank is held' invalid,' since activation of the sentence for defendant\u2019s failure to make such payment would constitute imprisonment for debt in violation of Article I, \u00a7 16, Constitution of North Carolina, it being obvious from the face of the warrant that the major part of such indebtedness was not created by the criminal acts to which defendant entered his plea of guilty.\nOn certiorari, on petition of defendant, to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reported in 7 N.C. App. 276, 172 S.E. 2d 231.\nThe defendant was brought to trial in the Municipal-County Court of the City of Greensboro upon a warrant. It was charged therein that he \u201con or about the 17, 18 and 19th day of July, 1988, * * did unlawfully and willfully and feloniously, and knowingly purchased goods and service, valued at $631.78, from Gate City Pharmacy [and fifteen other named business establishments] all of Greensboro, North Carolina, By use of North Carolina National Bank-Americard Number 342-120-304-239, when he knew that the \u25a0said credit card had been revoked by North Carolina National Bank, .and with the intent to defraud North Carolina National Bank out of the said sum of $631.78, in violation of Chapter 14, Section 113.13(a)(1), General Statutes of North Carolina * *\nIn the Municipal-County Court, the defendant entered a plea: \u25a0\u201cGuilty Fraudulent Use of Credit Card Non Felony.\u201d The court entered judgment on 17 September 1968 that the defendant be confined in the county jail for one year, the judgment to be suspended for four years upon the following conditions:\n\u201cPay $15.00 fine and costs. Pay into the Court the Sum of $7,326.29 for the use and benefit of North Carolina National Bank, Greensboro, N. C. Payments to be made at $200.00 per month and 1st payment to begin 11-1-68 and 1st of each month thereafter until the entire amount of $7,326.29 is paid. Shall be on a general good behavior and not violate any criminal laws of the State of North Carolina for 4 years.\u201d\nThe defendant paid the $15.00 fine and costs. On 2 December 1968, the case was transferred from the Municipal-County Court to the District Court of Guilford County pursuant to G.S. 7A-135. On 10 January 1969, the District Court, with the consent of the defendant, amended the judgment to provide that the payments for the benefit of the bank be made directly to it.\nOn 3 April 1969, the State moved for the issuance of a capias and the rendition of final judgment, filing with the motion a bill of particulars alleging the entry of the above judgment and that \u201cdefendant failed to comply with said conditions in that he failed to make payments into the court as ordered and is now $820.00 in arrears.\u201d\nOn 5 June 1969, the District Court heard the matter and found as a fact: \u201cThe defendant wilfully failed and refused to comply with the judgment in the above entitled cause in that he wilfully violated the Terms of Suspended Sentence.\u201d It thereupon ordered the sentence placed into effect, and from that order the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Guilford County.\nOn 10 September 1969, the matter came on for hearing in the Superior Court before May, J. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment on the grounds that: (1) The Municipal-County Court had no jurisdiction \u201cto render a verdict of guilty of a misdemeanor in that the only process it had before it charged a felony;\u201d and (2) \u201cthe warrant charges no crime in that it charges the defendant \u2018purchased\u2019 certain items by use of a credit card and does not charge that the items were not paid for or that anyone was actually defrauded by said \u2018purchases\u2019, while the crime is \u2018obtaining property\u2019 by fraudulent use of a credit card.\u201d Both motions were denied.\nThe Superior Court then conducted a \u201chearing de novo with respect to the revocation of the suspended sentence.\u201d It found as facts the taking of the foregoing procedural steps and that \u201cthe defendant was on the date of his hearing in the District Court several hundred dollars in arrears on the restitution payments required by the terms of his suspended sentence; that this constituted a wilful and deliberate violation of the terms of said suspended sentence and said violation was without just cause or excuse.\u201d It concluded \u201cas a matter of law that the defendant * * * wilfully violated the terms of said sentence and the said violation was without just cause and excuse.\u201d Thereupon, the Superior Court \u201cratified and confirmed\u201d the judgment of the District Court and ordered that \u201ccapias and commitment issue to the end that the active sentence be placed into effect.\u201d\nThe defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals assigning as error only the denial of his two motions in arrest of judgment. The Court of Appeals held that the two assignments of error are without merit, but the exception to the judgment challenges the sufficiency of the judge\u2019s findings of fact. On this point, it held the Superior Court\u2019s finding that the defendant had violated the terms of the suspended sentence and was in arrears on 3 April 1969 in excess of $800.00 is not sufficient to support its conclusion that \u201cthis constituted a wilful and deliberate violation of the terms of said suspended sentence and said violation was without just cause and excuse.\u201d For this reason, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the proceeding for further hearing in order that the Superior Court might determine, in its discretion, whether the failure of the defendant to make the required payments was without lawful excuse.\nAttorney General Morgan and Christine Y. Denson, Staff Attorney, for the State.\nJohn W. Hinsdale for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0550-01", "first_page_order": 576, "last_page_order": 582 }