STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Cumberland County
Nos. 05 CRS 064902
CHRISTOPHER RONALD WILLIAMS 05 CRS 065177
05 CRS 21452-56
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Donald R. Teeter, for the State.
Paul T. Cleavenger for defendant appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Defendant Christopher Ronald Williams (“defendant”) appeals
from his convictions and sentences entered 9 February 2006. He
argues that the trial court erred by not crediting him for the
total time he was incarcerated. For the reasons stated herein, we
determine there was no error.
In 2003, defendant was convicted of larceny after breaking and
entering. In 2005, defendant was convicted of larceny after
breaking and entering, breaking or entering, possession of stolen
goods, and two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. The
trial court suspended the sentences imposed for the 2003 and 2005
convictions and placed defendant on probation. Defendant'sprobation officer filed probation violation reports in each of the
above cases on 25 August 2005.
In 2006, defendant was charged with two counts of breaking
and/or entering and two counts of larceny after breaking and/or
entering. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to
the two counts of breaking and/or entering and two counts of
larceny after breaking and/or entering. The plea agreement provided
that defendant was to be sentenced to an active term of
imprisonment of 8 to 10 months to be served after the expiration of
the 2003 and 2005 sentences.
After taking defendant's guilty plea, the trial court heard
the probation violations regarding the 2003 and 2005 convictions.
Defendant, through counsel, admitted he willfully violated his
probation. Judge Rand found that the probation violations did occur
and each was willful and without lawful excuse. The trial court
revoked defendant's probation in each case and activated
defendant's sentences, giving the same credits provided for in the
original judgments. Judge Rand then sentenced defendant for the
2006 convictions as provided in the plea agreement.
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the trial
court erred in his 2005 case of possession of stolen goods by
failing to give him the appropriate amount of credit for the time
he was incarcerated on that charge. We disagree.
Credits allowed against the service of sentences is governed
by the North Carolina General Statutes which provide: The minimum and maximum term of a
sentence shall be credited with and diminished
by the total amount of time a defendant has
spent, committed to or in confinement in any
State or local correctional, mental or other
institution as a result of the charge that
culminated in the sentence. The credit
provided shall be calculated from the date
custody under the charge commenced and shall
include credit for all time spent in custody
pending trial, trial de novo, appeal, retrial,
or pending parole, probation, or post-release
supervision revocation hearing: Provided,
however, the credit available herein shall not
include any time that is credited on the term
of a previously imposed sentence to which a
defendant is subject.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-196.1 (2006).
The original judgment in 05 CRS 21455 provided that defendant
be given credit for 10 days pretrial confinement. It further set
out that he was to serve an active term of 30 days as a special
condition of probation. Defendant asserts that he should have been
given credit for the additional 30 days. Defendant did not object
to the amount of credit at sentencing, and he has failed to show
that he served the active term as a special condition of his
probation. Judge Rand gave defendant a 10-day credit as set out in
the original judgment. We hold that the trial court credited
defendant with all the time that was properly due him and this
assignment of error is overruled.
No error.
Judges STEELMAN and LEVINSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***