An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COAO2-1291

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 May 2003

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

    v.                        Yadkin County
                            Nos. 99 CRS 2524, 3162-64

JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD                
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments dated 11 June 2002 by Judge Michael E. Helms in Yadkin County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 2003.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Associate Attorney General Stacey A. Phipps, for the State.

    Appellate Defender Staples Hughes, by Assistant Appellate Defender Katherine Jane Allen, for defendant appellant.

    BRYANT, Judge.

    James Gregory Armistead appeals from judgments dated 11 June 2002 revoking his probation and activating his prison sentence.     Defendant was convicted of three counts of obtaining property by false pretense in case numbers 99 CRS 2524, 99 CRS 3162 and 99 CRS 3163, and one count of attempting to obtain property by false pretense in case number 99 CRS 3164. The trial court consolidated the offenses in case numbers 99 CRS 2524 and 99 CRS 3162 for sentencing and sentenced defendant to fifteen to eighteen months imprisonment. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed defendant on thirty-six months supervised probation. The trialcourt separately consolidated the offenses in case numbers 99 CRS 3163-64, sentenced defendant to a consecutive fifteen to eighteen month term of imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed defendant on thirty-six months supervised probation. As part of the conditions of his probation, defendant was ordered: (1) to make monetary restitution and (2) not to commit a crime.
    In April of 2002, defendant's probation officer filed two probation violation reports, each alleging defendant violated: (1) the monetary condition of his probation by failing “to make any payments toward his monetary obligation” and (2) the regular condition of his probation in that “[o]n [8 April 2002] . . . [d]efendant was convicted in Richmond County of uttering and received an active sentence.” At a 10 June 2002 hearing, defendant denied the allegations. Defendant's probation officer Joy Johnson testified that defendant had made no payments toward his monetary obligations and that defendant had been convicted of uttering and forgery in Richmond County on 8 April 2002. Defendant did not present any evidence. The trial court found defendant willfully violated the two conditions of his probation as set out in the probation violation report, revoked defendant's probation, and activated his original sentences.

_______________________________

    The issue is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that defendant willfully violated conditions of probation and whether this finding was sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of his probation.    Defendant contends the trial court erred in revoking his probation. Specifically, defendant argues the trial court erred in finding that he willfully failed to satisfy the monetary obligations of his probation without “inquiry into defendant's ability to pay.” Defendant also contends the trial court's finding was inadequate to support its conclusion that he violated the conditions of his probation.
    In State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 353 S.E.2d 250 (1987), this Court stated:
            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.

Id. at 521, 353 S.E.2d at 253 (citations omitted).
    In this case, the trial court revoked defendant's probation based on defendant's failure to make payments toward his monetary obligation and on his conviction of a crime. Defendant does not challenge his revocation based on his violation of the regular condition of probation that he not commit a crime. This violation alone is sufficient to revoke defendant's probation. See id. In paragraph two of the probation violation reports, defendant's probation officer alleged defendant willfully violated a regular condition of probation that he commit no criminal offense in anyjurisdiction in that he was convicted of uttering in Richmond County on 8 April 2002. Moreover, at the probation hearing, defendant's probation officer testified “[defendant] was convicted of uttering and forgery in Richmond County on [8 April 2002].” Defendant offered no evidence to show he did not commit the crime. This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding defendant violated this condition of his probation as set out in the violation reports. Further, this finding of fact is sufficiently definite to support the order revoking defendant's probation. Because we conclude the trial court properly revoked defendant's revocation on the ground that he committed a crime, we need not address whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation for failure to satisfy the monetary obligations of his probation. See id.
    Affirmed.
    Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***