Page 568 |
Previous | 568 of 831 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
540 COURT OF APPEALS [21
-
State v. Pratt
BRITT, Judge.
Defendant contends that the finding of fact upon which the
court revoked her probation was not supported by sufficient
evidence. We agree with the contention.
Many cases involving the revocation of suspended sentences
and probation judgments have found their way to the appellate
courts of this State. A review of a representative number of
those cases leads us to conclude that an accurate statement of
the law on the question of revocation of probation is as follows:
A proceeding to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution
but is a proceeding solely for the determination by the court
whether there has been a violation of a valid condition of pro-bation
so as to warrant putting into effect a sentence thereto-fore
entered; and while notice in writing to defendant, and an
opportunity for him to be heard, are necessary, the court is
not bound by strict rules of evidence, and all that is required
is that there be competent evidence reasonably sufficient to
satisfy the judge in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion
that the defendant had, without lawful excuse, willfully violated
a valid condition of probation. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348,
154 S.E. 2d 476 (1967) ; State v. Morton, 252 N.C. 482, 114
S.E. 2d 115 (1960) ; State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775, 92 S.E.
2d 205 (1956) ; State v. Sawye?-, 10 N.C. App. 723, 179 S.E.
2d 898 (1971).
In the case at bar, there was no competent evidence that
defendant had changed her address in violation of a provision of
her probation. The probation officer testified that she saw
defendant at Route 1, Box 1-F, Candor, N. C., through June of
1972; that she went to that address several times subsequent
to that date but failed to find defendant; that some two or
three months prior to the hearing, she was advised that defend-ant
was in Moore County "running a club where they were
selling liquor"; and, that "I don't know whether she now resides
at the same address." On cross-examination, the probation officer
stated that while she had information that defendant was run-ning
a place in Moore County, "I do not believe I had any infor-mation
on where she was staying." (While the evidence did not
show how far said residence is from Moore County, we take
judicial notice of the fact that the Town of Candor is only a
few miles from the Moore County line.) H. Elam testified that
he went to the residence at the address aforesaid five or six
times looking for defendant but never found her there; that the
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.021, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 21, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 1974. Cited as 21 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 31.9 MB; 832 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_021.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 568 |
| Full Text | 540 COURT OF APPEALS [21 - State v. Pratt BRITT, Judge. Defendant contends that the finding of fact upon which the court revoked her probation was not supported by sufficient evidence. We agree with the contention. Many cases involving the revocation of suspended sentences and probation judgments have found their way to the appellate courts of this State. A review of a representative number of those cases leads us to conclude that an accurate statement of the law on the question of revocation of probation is as follows: A proceeding to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution but is a proceeding solely for the determination by the court whether there has been a violation of a valid condition of pro-bation so as to warrant putting into effect a sentence thereto-fore entered; and while notice in writing to defendant, and an opportunity for him to be heard, are necessary, the court is not bound by strict rules of evidence, and all that is required is that there be competent evidence reasonably sufficient to satisfy the judge in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion that the defendant had, without lawful excuse, willfully violated a valid condition of probation. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476 (1967) ; State v. Morton, 252 N.C. 482, 114 S.E. 2d 115 (1960) ; State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775, 92 S.E. 2d 205 (1956) ; State v. Sawye?-, 10 N.C. App. 723, 179 S.E. 2d 898 (1971). In the case at bar, there was no competent evidence that defendant had changed her address in violation of a provision of her probation. The probation officer testified that she saw defendant at Route 1, Box 1-F, Candor, N. C., through June of 1972; that she went to that address several times subsequent to that date but failed to find defendant; that some two or three months prior to the hearing, she was advised that defend-ant was in Moore County "running a club where they were selling liquor"; and, that "I don't know whether she now resides at the same address." On cross-examination, the probation officer stated that while she had information that defendant was run-ning a place in Moore County, "I do not believe I had any infor-mation on where she was staying." (While the evidence did not show how far said residence is from Moore County, we take judicial notice of the fact that the Town of Candor is only a few miles from the Moore County line.) H. Elam testified that he went to the residence at the address aforesaid five or six times looking for defendant but never found her there; that the |
