State v. Willis

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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-626 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 January 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Rutherford County No. 11 CRS 2459 RODNEY LEE WILLIS, Defendant. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 29 October 2012 by Judge Laura J. Bridges in Rutherford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 December 2013. Roy Cooper, Attorney General, Attorney General, for the State. by Ann Stone, Assistant J. Thomas Diepenbrock, for defendant-appellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Defendant entered upon Rodney the Lee Willis revocation liberties with a child. of appeals his from the judgment probation for indecent For the reasons stated herein, we must vacate the judgment and remand this case to the trial court for entry of a new judgment consistent with this opinion. On 4 August 2010, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of -2incest and one count of indecent liberties with a child. trial court entered a judgment upon the incest The conviction imposing an active sentence of 20 to 24 months imprisonment with credit for the confinement. conviction, 413 As the days to the trial defendant indecent court spent in liberties entered a prejudgment with judgment a child imposing a suspended sentence of 26 to 32 months imprisonment and placing defendant on supervised probation for 30 months. court did not prejudgment award credit confinement liberties with a child. the probationary for against the time his The trial defendant sentence for spent in indecent The judgments did not indicate whether sentence was to run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence of active imprisonment. On 31 August 2012, the State filed a violation report alleging that defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation. hearing Defendant admitted to the alleged violations at a held admission, on the 29 trial October court 2012. revoked Based upon defendant s defendant s probation and activated his suspended sentence of 26 to 32 months imprisonment with credit for the 63 days defendant spent awaiting hearing on the probation violation. in confinement Defendant appeals. _________________________ Defendant s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court -3failed to fully credit liberties with a child. his activated sentence for indecent Specifically, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to credit his activated sentence for indecent liberties with a child with the 413 days he spent in prejudgment confinement as a result of the charges that culminated in the sentences imposed on 4 August 2010. We review alleged sentencing errors to determine whether [the] sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing. State v. Deese, 127 N.C. App. 536, 540, 491 S.E.2d 682, 685 (1997) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1444(a1) (Cum. Supp. 1996)). A defendant is entitled to credit against his sentence for the total amount of time a defendant has spent . . . in confinement in any State or local correctional . . . institution as a result of the charge that culminated in the sentence. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-196.1 (2013). The language of section 15-196.1 manifests the legislature s intention that a defendant be credited with all time defendant was in custody and not at liberty as the result of the charge. State v. Farris, 336 N.C. 552, 556, 444 S.E.2d 182, 185 (1994). Where a defendant has spent time in custody as the result of multiple charges that culminate in concurrent sentences, each concurrent sentence is credited with so much of the time as was spent in custody due to the offense resulting in the sentence. -4N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-196.2 (2013). A probationary sentence runs concurrently with a sentence of imprisonment imposed at the same time, unless otherwise specified by the trial court. Stat. § 15A-1346(b) (2013). N.C. Gen. In addition, a suspended sentence that is activated upon revocation of probation is credited with the time the defendant spent in confinement for the violation of probation. State v. Belcher, 173 N.C. App. 620, 623, 619 S.E.2d 567, 569 (2005). A defendant is therefore entitled to credit against his or her sentence for all time spent in confinement on a particular charge, whether prejudgment or postconviction. State v. Reynolds, 164 N.C. App. 406, 408, 595 S.E.2d 788, 789 (2004). The record in this case reveals that defendant spent 413 days in prejudgment confinement as a result of both the incest and indecent liberties with a child charges that culminated in the sentences imposed on 4 August 2010 as well as 63 days in confinement awaiting hearing on the probation violation. trial with court the properly 63 days credited defendant violation of probation. S.E.2d at credited spent in 569. the The activated prejudgment defendant s spent in activated confinement The sentence for the See Belcher, 173 N.C. App. at 623, 619 trial court sentence should with confinement. the have, 413 Because however, also days defendant the original -5judgments did not specify whether the sentences were to run concurrently or consecutively, the sentences ran concurrently. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346(b). therefore, should have both prejudgment confinement. v. Dudley, (holding 319 that N.C. been The concurrent sentences, credited with 413 days of See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-196.2; State 656, defendant 660, given 356 two S.E.2d 361, concurrent 364 life (1987) sentences should have been credited on both life sentences with time spent in defendant jail is prejudgment liberties awaiting entitled trial ). to confinement with a credit against child. Thus, Accordingly, for the his we sentence we must time hold he for vacate the that spent in indecent judgment entered upon revocation of defendant s probation and remand this case to the trial court for entry of a new judgment crediting defendant s activated sentence with 413 confinement. Vacated and remanded. Judges ERVIN and MCCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e). days of prejudgment

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.