State v Shehan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA10-1174 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 July 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TERRY ALLEN SHEHAN Polk County Nos. 07 CRS 51042 09 CRS 116-19 10 CRS 104 Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 25 February 2010 by Judge Mark E. Powell in Polk County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 June 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General David D. Lennon, for the State. Diepenbrock Law Office, P.A., by J. Thomas Diepenbrock, for defendant-appellant. STEELMAN, Judge. Where there was competent evidence presented to the trial court at defendant s sentencing hearing supporting the amounts of restitution ordered, the trial court s awards of restitution are affirmed. I. Factual and Procedural Background -2On 31 December 2007, Terry Allen Shehan (defendant) was charged with misdemeanor failure to work after being paid (case 07 CRS 051042). On 9 March 2009, defendant was indicted on four counts of obtaining property by false pretenses (cases 09 CRS 116-119). entered On 25 charging February defendant 2010, a with a bill fifth of information count property by false pretenses (case 10 CRS 104). of was obtaining Defendant and his counsel waived the return of a bill of indictment and agreed to be tried upon the bill of information. On 25 February 2010, defendant entered pleas of guilty to each of the six charges. The plea agreement provided that defendant would be placed on probation upon terms and conditions to be determined by the trial court. Defendant was sentenced to 45 days on the misdemeanor charge, and to five consecutive sentences of 10 to 12 months on the obtaining property by false pretenses charges. Each sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for 60 months. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution as follows: (1) case 07 CRS 51042, $4,700.00; (2) case 09 CRS 116, $14,000.00; (3) case 09 CRS 119, $3,750.00; and (4) case 10 CRS 104, $60,000.00. On 8 March 2010, defendant filed notice of appeal as to each of these cases. II. Amount of Restitution -3In his only argument, defendant contends that the evidence submitted at his sentencing hearing was not sufficient to support the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court. We disagree. A. Because no Cases 09 CRS 117 and 118 restitution was ordered in these cases, and defendant s argument is limited to the amount of restitution awarded, defendant has abandoned his appeal of these two cases, and they are dismissed. N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6). B. Standard of Review Restitution may be ordered by the trial court to pay the victim for proximately N.C. out Gen. awarded any Stat. by the injuries of the ยง or damages offense committed 15A-1340.34(b) trial court arising must adduced at trial or at sentencing. by (2009). be directly and the defendant. Any restitution supported by evidence State v. Shelton, 167 N.C. App. 225, 233, 605 S.E.2d 228, 233 (2004) (quotation omitted). Where there is some evidence as to the appropriate amount of restitution, appeal. the recommendation will not be overruled on State v. Hunt, 80 N.C. App. 190, 195, 341 S.E.2d 350, 354 (1986). C. Case 07 CRS 51042 With regard to case 07 CRS 51042, defendant contends that the trial court failed to give him credit for any of the -4material or labor he supplied. However, evidence was presented that the homeowners paid $4,700.00 to defendant for exterior and interior work that was never completed. The only work performed by defendant was removal of the shingles and reinstallation of tarpaper, house. which the homeowner testified was original The interior work was left unfinished. to the The homeowners had to finish the work themselves at an undetermined additional cost. They testified that the only material defendant left behind was the original tarpaper. We hold there was sufficient evidence court s to support the trial determination that defendant must pay restitution in the amount of $4,700.00 to the homeowners. D. Case 09 CRS 116 With regard to case 09 CRS 116, defendant contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay $14,000.00 in restitution because he and his workers completed the projects agreed upon, including fixing a floor, putting concrete in the basement; installing an addition, windows, siding, and gutters; and doing some electrical work. Defendant further contends that the evidence did not show what was completed or repaired after he left the job site or what it cost. The homeowner testified that $14,000.00 represented the amount needed to hire someone else to complete work left undone by defendant. After defendant left, they had to hire someone to -5finish the siding and to shingle the roof. left undone as well. Interior work was We hold that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the trial court s award of $14,000.00. E. Case 09 CRS 119 With regard to case 09 CRS 119, defendant contends that the amount of restitution was not supported by the evidence where evidence showed he installed a dehumidifier as well as some plywood and boards pursuant to the agreement he made with the homeowner. total of Evidence was presented that the homeowners paid a $4,100.00 to defendant to do various projects, including to install a dehumidifier and to do some roof repairs. The homeowner testified that after the final payment defendant, defendant did not return to finish the job. to The trial court determined the restitution amount of $3,750.00 by taking the amount paid to defendant, $4,100.00, and subtracting $350.00, the value of the dehumidifier. We hold that because defendant trial left work unfinished and the court credited defendant in the appropriate amount, that there was sufficient evidence to support restitution in the amount $3,750.00. F. Case 10 CRS 104 With regard to case 10 CRS 104, defendant contends that the award of $60,000.00 was not supported by the evidence because the trial court failed to give him credit for the eight weeks of work that he and his workers put in on the remodeling project -6which had a total cost of $120,000.00. Defendant argues the court should not have ordered restitution in the full amount sought by the homeowners. The homeowners testified that they defendant towards the renovation project. paid $60,000.00 to Defendant failed to provide receipts, failed to complete work which he indicated had been done, took numerous items from the house, and left the house in a complete state of disrepair. The only material that he purchased for the site was a small pile of 2 x 4 boards. The one wall he installed had to be removed because it did not conform to the building code. evidence presented to We hold that there was sufficient support the trial court s award of $60,000.00 in restitution. III. Conclusion We hold that there was sufficient evidence presented at defendant s sentencing hearing to support the restitution awards totaling $82,450.00. Cases 09 CRS 117 and 118 are DISMISSED. Cases 07 CRS 51042, 09 CRS 116, 09 CRS 119, and 10 CRS 104 are AFFIRMED. Judges CALABRIA and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
