State v. Alexander

267 S.E.2d 396, 47 N.C. App. 502, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 3140
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedJuly 1, 1980
Docket809SC68
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 267 S.E.2d 396 (State v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Alexander, 267 S.E.2d 396, 47 N.C. App. 502, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 3140 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Judgment imposing a prison sentence often years minimum, twenty years maximum, was entered. The sentence includes the following:

As to restitution or reparation as a condition of attaining work release privilege or parole, the Court orders the defendant to pay a fine of $4000.00 and the cost of this action; make restitution to the State of North Carolina for attorney fees awarded her court appointed counsel for services to her in connection with this action and to any other court appointed lawyer who may represent her in the future in this matter; make restitution to the personal representative of the deceased Jonas Williams and in an amount equal to the funeral bill of Jonas Williams.
It is recommended that should she become eligible for Parole or Work Release that she be required to make res *503 titution, to pay fine and cost, and attorney fee under the supervision of a Work Release Counselor or Parole Officer.

When an active sentence is imposed, the judge should consider whether, as a further rehabilitative measure, restitution or reparation should be ordered or recommended to the Parole Commission and the Secretary of Correction to be imposed as a condition of attaining work-release privileges. G.S. 148-33.2(c). We hold, however, that the imposition of a fine is not “restitution or reparation” within the meaning of the statute. We, therefore, modify the judgment by striking that portion ordering the payment of a fine of $4,000.00.

We have examined defendant’s other assignments of error and conclude that they fail to disclose prejudicial error.

No error in the trial. The judgment is modified and affirmed.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Wingate
561 S.E.2d 911 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2002)
Mitchel v. CIGNA PROPERTY AND CAS. INS.
625 So. 2d 862 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 S.E.2d 396, 47 N.C. App. 502, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 3140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alexander-ncctapp-1980.