An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA03-1105

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 4 May 2004

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Guilford County
                                Nos.    01 CRS 106755-56
BEVERLY RENEA BROWN                        02 CRS 73035
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 10 April 2003 by Judge James M. Webb in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2004.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Jill A. Bryan, for the State.

    Hall & Hall Attorneys at Law, P.C., by Douglas L. Hall, for defendant appellant.

    McCULLOUGH, Judge.

    Defendant appeals the decision to revoke her probation and activate her suspended sentences.
    On 19 August 2002, defendant entered guilty pleas to possession of cocaine with intent to sell or deliver (PWISD), possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of cocaine. The trial court consolidated the PWISD and possession of drug paraphernalia offenses, imposed a suspended prison sentence of 10 to 12 months, and placed defendant on 36 months of supervised probation. In a second judgment, the court imposed a concurrent suspended sentence of 6 to 8 months in prison and 36 months of supervised probation.    In a report filed 28 March 2003, defendant was charged with the following probation violations: (1) testing positive for cocaine use on two occasions; (2) missing a scheduled appointment with her probation officer; and (3) refusing to submit to a drug screening on two occasions. On 7 April 2003, the trial court found that defendant had violated the terms of her probation willfully and without lawful excuse. Based on these violations, the court revoked defendant's probation and activated her suspended sentences.
    On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence to establish that defendant refused to submit to drug tests.
    "'[P]robation is an act of grace by the State to one convicted of a crime.'" State v. Hill, 132 N.C. App. 209, 211, 510 S.E.2d 413, 414 (1999) (quoting State v. Freeman, 47 N.C. App. 171, 175, 266 S.E.2d 723, 725, disc. review denied, 301 N.C. 99, 273 S.E.2d 304 (1980)). The weighing of evidence and the decision to revoke probation upon a finding of a willful violation thereof are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. The violation of a single condition of probation provides sufficient grounds to revoke probation and to activate a suspended sentence. State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337, 196 S.E.2d 185, 188 (1973).
    Here, defendant challenges the evidence used to prove her refusal to submit to drug testing. Because the trial court concluded that there were two additional violations and any single violation would support the revocation of probation, any error inthe admission of the challenged evidence was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
    Affirmed.
    Judges WYNN and HUNTER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***