STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Lenoir County
No. 01 CRS 51372
ISAAC JESSE ARTIS
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General P.
Bly Hall, for the State.
William D. Spence, for defendant-appellant.
CALABRIA, Judge.
On 15 January 2002, Isaac Jesse Artis (“defendant”) pled no
contest to assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.
The trial court sentenced defendant to twenty to thirty-three
months' imprisonment, suspended the sentence and placed defendant
on thirty-six months supervised probation. Defendant's conditions
of his probation were to pay $338.75 in restitution; pay monthly
probation supervision fees; attend scheduled appointments with his
probation officer; and commit no criminal offense in any
jurisdiction. In addition, defendant was ordered to submit to
house arrest with electronic monitoring for ninety days, followed
by intensive supervision for nine months. On 5 February 2002, defendant's probation officer filed a
probation violation report alleging that defendant had violated the
house arrest condition because defendant had not provided telephone
services for the electronic monitoring. On 14 February 2002, the
trial court modified the original judgment by extending defendant's
time to obtain telephone service until 13 March 2002. The trial
court again modified defendant's probation on 13 March 2002 by
continuing defendant on probation due to his compliance with the
electronic monitoring.
Approximately two years later on 2 February 2004, defendant's
probation officer filed another probation violation report
alleging: (1) defendant was $310 in arrears on probation
supervision fees, and (2) defendant had been convicted of two
counts of driving with no operator's license and one count of
operating a vehicle without insurance.
Judge Paul L. Jones held a probation violation hearing on 3
March 2004. Defendant waived his right to counsel and represented
himself. Defendant admitted the violations and testified that he
was in arrears on his payments because he was in a car accident and
lost his job. Defendant admitted that he was driving when he had
the accident and that he did not have a license at the time of the
accident. Defendant's probation officer informed the court that
defendant had already been on house arrest and intensive probation
and asked the court to place defendant in custody for a period of
forty-five days and for defendant to pay his monies sixty days
after his release from jail. The trial court found defendantwillfully violated his probation and adopted the recommendation of
the probation officer. On 3 March 2004, the trial court ordered
defendant's probation was continued with the modification that
defendant serve forty-five days in the custody of the Lenior County
Sheriff and pay his arrears within sixty days of release from
custody. Defendant appeals on the issue of whether defendant
willfully violated a condition of his probation without lawful
excuse.
It is well settled that “'probation or suspension of sentence
comes as an act of grace to one convicted of, or pleading guilty
to, a crime.'” State v. Tennant, 141 N.C. App. 524, 526, 540
S.E.2d 807, 808 (2000) (quoting State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245,
154 S.E.2d 53, 57 (1967)). All that is required in a hearing to
revoke probation is that the evidence be such as to “reasonably
satisfy the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion that the
defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation or
that the defendant has violated without lawful excuse a valid
condition upon which the sentence was suspended.” State v. Hewett,
270 N.C. 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1967). A verified
probation violation report is competent evidence sufficient to
support revocation of probation. State v. Gamble, 50 N.C. App.
658, 661, 274 S.E.2d 874, 876 (1981). Once the State meets its
burden, the burden then shifts to 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 waswillful or without lawful excuse.” State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App.
517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987). “Any violation of a valid
condition of probation is sufficient to revoke [a] defendant's
probation.” Id.
We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to show
that defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation
without lawful excuse. Here, defendant admitted the two
violations. Although defendant informed the trial court that he
did not comply with the monetary conditions of his probation
because he was in a car accident and lost his job, defendant
offered no excuse for violating the condition that he commit no
criminal offense. Defendant's admission, without offering any
evidence to justify driving without insurance and no operator's
license, 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). We conclude that there is evidence in the record to
support the judge's findings that defendant willfully and without
lawful excuse violated the conditions of his probation by
committing criminal offenses. Furthermore, defendant has not shown
that the trial court's decision for defendant to serve an active
term of forty-five days as a special probation condition, rather
than revoke defendant's probation, was an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***