STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Halifax County
No. 01 CRS 1916
ANTONIO LUDRETT JOHNSON
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Tammera S. Hill, for the State.
Brannon Strickland, PLLC, by Anthony M. Brannon for defendant-
appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
In August of 2001, defendant Antonio Ludrett Johnson pled no
contest to driving while license revoked and discharge of a weapon
into occupied property. The trial court sentenced defendant to
imprisonment for a minimum term of twenty-nine months and a maximum
term of forty-four months, suspended the sentence, and placed
defendant on three years supervised probation. As a condition of
his probation, defendant was ordered to serve sixty days active
imprisonment; pay $575 in court cost fees; pay monthly probation
supervision fees; attend scheduled appointments with his probation
officer; and remain in the jurisdiction of the court unless granted
permission to leave by the court or probation officer. Defendant's probation officer filed a probation violation
report with the trial court on 3 April 2002 alleging defendant
violated his probation by failing to make required monetary
payments and by failing to attend meetings with his probation
officer. In an addendum filed in August of 2002, defendant's
probation officer also alleged defendant left his place of
residence without first receiving permission from his probation
officer. Judge Dwight L. Cranford held a probation violation
hearing on 1 May 2003. Defendant, through his counsel, admitted
the violations, but maintained that his violations were not wilful.
Defendant's probation officer testified that defendant was $140 in
arrears in probation supervision fees and $350 in arrears in court
fees. She also testified that defendant had not reported as
directed on 24 and 28 January 2002. Defendant's probation officer
informed the court that she traveled to Virginia and brought
defendant back to Halifax County to face his violations.
Defendant testified that he had been living in Virginia when
he was arrested on the present charges and that he had asked to
have his probation transferred, but was told his probationary
sentence could not be transferred. Defendant testified that he
could not find a job in Enfield, North Carolina, so he went back to
Virginia to work with his cousin in the carpentry business.
Defendant also stated that he went to Virginia to care for his
three-year-old daughter and help his fiancé. He admitted not
paying any money toward his court fees or his supervision fees.
Defendant further admitted having been served with his firstviolation report before going back to Virginia. After hearing all
the evidence and arguments from counsel, the trial court found
defendant had willfully and without lawful excuse violated the
terms and conditions of his probation.
In its judgment and commitment upon revocation of probation
entered 1 May 2003, the trial court found that “by the evidence
presented, the Court is reasonably satisfied in its discretion that
the defendant violated each of the conditions of the defendant's
probation” and “the defendant violated each condition willfully and
without valid excuse[.]” The court also found that each violation
was in and of itself a sufficient basis upon which to revoke
defendant's probation. Accordingly, the trial court activated
defendant's original sentence. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in revoking his
probation. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence
that he willfully and without lawful excuse violated the conditions
of his probation. We disagree.
This Court has 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.
State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253(1987)(citations omitted).
We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to show
that defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation
without lawful excuse. Here, defendant admitted that his court
costs and probationary fees were in arrears, but offered no lawful
excuse, stating that he fell behind in his monetary obligations
because he could not find a job in Enfield. Defendant, however,
testified that he “had a job in Virginia” working for his cousin.
Despite his job in Virginia, defendant made no effort to satisfy
his monetary obligations. Moreover, defendant admitted violating
the condition of his probation that he attend regularly scheduled
meetings with his probation officer. The only testimony regarding
the missed meetings was from defendant's probation officer, who
testified that defendant stated to her that he missed the 28
January 2002 appointment because “he did not have a ride.”
Defendant's admission that he missed the appointment, without
offering any evidence to justify the absence, was sufficient 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). Accordingly, we
conclude it was within the trial court's discretion to revoke
defendant's probation.
Affirmed.
Judges MCGEE and BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***