NO. COA04-1403

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Durham County
                                Nos. 03 CRS 55355,
EARL GREEN                            04 CRS 45501
        Defendant

    Appeal by defendant from judgments signed 7 July 2004 by Judge Henry W. Hight in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2005.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Floyd M. Lewis, for the State.

    William B. Gibson for defendant-appellant.

    BRYANT, Judge.

    Earl Green (defendant) appeals his judgment signed 7 July 2004, entered consistent with a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of heroin, second degree trespass, and possession of a schedule I controlled substance. In accordance with the plea agreement entered 13 April 2004, defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of eight to ten months imprisonment. Defendant's sentences were suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for thirty-six months.

                                       &nb sp;         

    On 10 May 2004, probation violation reports were filed alleging defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his probation. Specifically, the report alleged defendant had: failed to report to his probation officer and to set up his communityservice; violated curfew; admitted to using heroin; and had wholly failed to comply with the conditions of his probation.
     On 7 July 2004, a probation violation hearing was held in Durham County Superior Court. Defendant denied the allegations in the probation violation report. Defendant testified he had a bad drug problem and that he was trying to get into a program at Duke when he met with his probation officer. Defendant stated he “would have loved to have report[ed] to him” but “my habit and my condition was out of control.” The trial court found defendant had willfully violated the terms of his probation. Accordingly, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his suspended sentences. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

____________________________

    The issues on appeal are whether: (I) the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's ruling that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation and (II) the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support the probation revocation.

I

     Defendant first argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's ruling he violated his probation. After careful review of the record, briefs and contentions of the parties, we find no error. 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 probationwithout 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).
     In the case sub judice, defendant allegedly violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer on 27 April 2004, and not making contact with his probation officer at any time after 19 April 2004. Defendant's probation officer testified he saw defendant on 19 April 2004, and defendant “never reported back.” The defendant has the burden of showing lawful excuse or lack of willfulness and if the defendant fails to carry this burden, evidence of failure to comply is sufficient to support a finding that the violation was willful or without lawful excuse. State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985). Defendant's explanation he was addicted to drugs is not a lawful excuse for his probation violation. Accordingly, we conclude it was within the trial court's discretion to revoke defendant's probation.
     Because sufficient grounds existed to revoke defendant's probation, we do not need to consider defendant's remaining probation violations.

II

     Defendant next argues the trial court failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support the probation revocation. Defendant contends the trial court should have made specific findings clearly showing the court considered and evaluated defendant's evidence of his inability to comply with probation. We disagree.
    In the case sub judice, the trial court found that based on the record, as well as the evidence presented by the parties, defendant had violated the terms of his probation as alleged in the probation violation report. When the court prefaces its findings with words such as “based upon the evidence presented,” the court sufficiently shows it considered all the evidence, including evidence presented by the defendant. See State v. Williamson, 61 N.C. App. 531, 535, 301 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1983). The court is not required to make specific findings of fact regarding each of the defendant's allegations. Id. This Court has stated:
        Although the Judge could have been more explicit in the findings by stating that he had considered and evaluated defendant's evidence . . . and found it insufficient to justify breach of the probation condition, we hold that his failure to do so does not constitute an abuse of discretion. It would not be reasonable to require that a judge make specific findings of fact on each of defendant's allegations tending to justify his breach of conditions.

Id. Accordingly, we find no error.
    No error .
     Judges ELMORE and GEER concur.
     Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***