An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-806

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 4 March 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Durham County
                                No. 01 CRS 21422
MICHAEL REDDIX
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 22 October 2001 by Judge W. Osmond Smith in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 February 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for the State.

    James M. Bell for defendant-appellant.

    TYSON, Judge.

    

I. Background

    On 13 September 2000, Michael Reddix (“defendant”) was convicted of assault inflicting serious bodily injury and common law robbery. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-four to twenty-nine months imprisonment for the assault charge. This sentence was suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for sixty months. Defendant was sentenced to a consecutive term of twelve to fifteen months imprisonment for the robbery charge. This sentence was also suspended and defendant was placed on supervised probation for thirty-six months.
    On 14 May 2001, probation violation reports were filedalleging that defendant had violated his probation. Specifically, it was alleged that defendant: (1) had failed to report to his probation officer; (2) failed to report to prison to serve a weekend in jail; (3) vacated his place of residence and failed to make his whereabouts known; (4) failed to complete community service; (5) failed to attend mental health classes and keep doctor appointments; and (7) had violated curfew.
    On 22 October 2001, a probation violation hearing was held in Durham County Superior Court. Defendant denied violating his probation. The trial court found that defendant had willfully violated the terms of his probation as alleged in the violation reports and revoked his probation in part, and modified it in part, and continued it in part. For the assault offense, the trial court activated defendant's previously suspended sentence. The trial court also modified defendant's probation, striking the community service requirement, but adding a requirement that defendant be evaluated by mental health and follow any recommendations. The trial court continued probation for the robbery offense, but stayed it until the completion of his active sentence for the assault offense. Defendant appeals.
II. Issues

    Defendant makes several arguments on appeal. First, defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing hearsay testimony into evidence. Defendant argues that the testimony was used to prove that he violated his curfew and stopped attending rehabilitation classes, and should not have been admitted. Second, defendantargues that the trial court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact regarding each of the several violations. Third, defendant contends that the findings by the trial court that defendant willfully violated his probation without lawful excuse was contrary to the evidence. Finally, defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to consider his testimony concerning his mental condition.
    After careful review of the record, brief and contentions of the parties, we affirm.
III. Willful Violation of Probation

    The dispositive issue on appeal is whether defendant willfully violated a condition of his probation without lawful excuse.
    Any violation of a valid condition of probation is sufficient to revoke defendant's probation. All that is required to revoke probation is evidence satisfying the trial court in its discretion that the defendant violated a valid condition of probation without lawful excuse. The burden is on defendant to present competent evidence of his inability to comply with the conditions of probation; and that otherwise, evidence of defendant's failure to comply may justify a finding that defendant's failure to comply was wilful or without lawful excuse.

State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987)(citations omitted). Here, defendant violated the condition of his probation that he report to his probation officer. Defendant was ordered to meet with his probation officer on a weekly basis. The State presented evidence that defendant did not meet with his probation officer on any occasion after 28 March 2001. Defendant admitted that he had not met with his probation officer and presented no evidence of his inability to comply with this term of his probation. Defendant's failure to meet with hisprobation officer was sufficient evidence within itself to sustain the trial court's finding that his failure to comply was without lawful excuse. See State v. Alston, 139 N.C. App. 787, 794-95, 534 S.E.2d 666, 671 (2000). The decision to revoke defendant's probation was within the trial court's discretion.
    Defendant's argument that the trial court did not consider his mental condition is without merit. The trial court struck the community service requirement and required defendant to receive mental health treatment upon consideration of defendant's inability to perform community service due to his mental condition. Defendant's assignment of error is overruled.
IV. Conclusion

    There were sufficient grounds to revoke defendant's probation. We do not consider defendant's remaining issues as they are moot.
    Affirmed.
    Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and BRYANT concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***