An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-443

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 6 April 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Cabarrus County
                                Nos.    99 CRS 14971-72
KENNETH JOSEPH EUDY
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 7 November 2002 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 March 2004.

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

    Anne Bleyman for defendant appellant.

    WYNN, Judge.

    Defendant, Kenneth Joseph Eudy, argues on appeal that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgments revoking his probation and activating his suspended prison sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
    Defendant pled guilty on 13 December 1999 to two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive suspended terms of fifteen to eighteen months' imprisonment and placed him on supervised probation for a period of three years.
    Probation violation reports dated 5 August 2002 charged Defendant with failing to pay $100.00 of his supervision fee,changing his address without notifying his probation officer, and refusing to submit to a drug test on 9 July 2002. The reports also charged Defendant with violating special conditions of the sex offender control program, including failing to register with the sheriff's department as a sex offender on 1 May 2002, registering a false address with the sheriff's department on 31 July 2002, changing his address without prior approval, and failing to attend sexual abuse treatment program meetings on four occasions. Additional reports dated 7 August 2002 charged Defendant with failing to report to his probation officer on two additional occasions, failing to attend a sexual abuse treatment program meeting, and absconding from supervision on 31 July 2002. In a report dated 31 October 2002, Defendant was charged with violating an additional special condition of the sex offender control program by living with a seventeen-year-old girl.
    At his revocation hearing, the State adduced the testimony of Defendant's probation officer, Laura Bame, who detailed Defendant's non-compliance with the terms of his probation, and Cabarrus County Deputy Sheriff Lewis Burgess, who confirmed Defendant had registered with his department using a false address in Albermarle, North Carolina, while residing in an apartment at 453 Harris Street in Concord, North Carolina. The State introduced into evidence a copy of Defendant's lease to the Concord apartment. The State withdrew its allegation regarding the monetary conditions of probation. Defendant admitted the charged violations but stated he attended all scheduled meetings and appointments until April of2002, when he “went on the run” from additional criminal charges. He acknowledged living with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend, but expressed his intention to marry her.
    After hearing the parties' evidence, the trial court announced in open court as follows:
        The Court finds that the defendant willfully without lawful excuse violated the terms and conditions of his probation in each of these cases with the exception of the payment of the money owed. All of the violations the Court finds to have occurred and the sentences are placed into effect.    
In its judgments revoking probation and activating his suspended sentences, however, the court found only two of the violations charged in the 7 August 2002 reports: (1) failure to report to scheduled appointments with the probation officer on 1 August 2002 and 5 August 2002; and (2) failure to attend a meeting of the sexual offender treatment program on 5 August 2002. The judgments provide that each of Defendant's violations is alone sufficient to support revocation.
    ___________________________________________________
    On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in finding that he willfully failed to register as a sex offender, absent evidence that the State provided proper notice of his obligations under the Sex Offender Registration Program. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.8 (2001). Having failed to raise this issue in the trial court, Defendant is precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2003). We also note that the trial court did not rely on Defendant's failure to register as asex offender as a ground for revoking his probation. The judgments cite instead Defendant's failure in August of 2002 to report to his probation officer on two scheduled occasions and to attend a meeting of his sexual offender treatment program. The State adduced substantial evidence to support the court's findings, and Defendant admitted the violations, explaining that he was “on the run” from additional felony charges.
    Defendant further contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation, both because the State failed to properly notify him of his obligation to register as a sex offender and because the 13 September 1999 indictments charging him with statutory rape were fatally defective. As discussed above, the trial court did not revoke Defendant's probation based upon his failure to register as a sex offender. Assuming, arguendo, that Defendant was not properly notified of the sex offender registration program, the trial court retained jurisdiction to revoke Defendant's probation based on his willful violations of the other conditions of his probation. Likewise, the State did not prosecute Defendant under the challenged indictments. Instead, it proceeded against Defendant by informations filed 13 December 1999, charging him with two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor. Defendant and his counsel signed the informations, waiving indictment on the indecent liberties charges. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-642(c) (2001). The informations were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the trial court. See State v. Willis, 285 N.C. 195, 201, 204 S.E.2d 33, 37 (1974). We overrule this assignment oferror.
    The record on appeal contains additional assignments of error not addressed by Defendant in his brief to this Court. By rule, we deem them abandoned. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2003).
    Affirmed.
    Judges HUNTER and McCULLOUGH concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***