STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Wilkes County
Nos. 02 CRS 50422, 50444
RONNIE LEE BULLARD, 01 CRS 54213
Defendant.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General M.
Lynne Weaver, for the State.
Bryan Emery Gates, Jr. for defendant-appellant.
WYNN, Judge.
The violation of even a single condition of probation provides
sufficient grounds for the trial court to revoke a defendant's
probation. See, e.g., State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337, 196
S.E.2d 185, 188 (1973). At his revocation hearing, Defendant
admitted all of the charged violations; accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's revocation of his probation.
In 2002, Defendant pled guilty to three counts each of
felonious breaking and entering and larceny and additional counts
of forgery and uttering. The trial court consolidated the offenses
into four judgments, imposed suspended prison sentences, and placed
Defendant on three years of supervised probation. In reports filed 11 May 2004, Defendant was charged with the
following willful violations of his probation: (1) failure to
complete fifty hours of community service; (2) failure to report to
his probation officer on more than twenty occasions; (3) failure to
comply with the TASC program and submit to recommended treatment;
and (4) failure to satisfy the monetary conditions of his probation
in 02 CRS 50422 and 01 CRS 54213. At his revocation hearing,
Defendant admitted all of the charged violations. After a
statement from Defendant's probation officer, the trial court
revoked Defendant's probation and activated his suspended
sentences.
On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in
revoking his probation based upon his failure to pay restitution to
the third party insurers which had compensated his victims for
their losses. However, Defendant admitted to three non-monetary
violations, any one of which was sufficient to warrant revocation.
It is well established that the violation of even a single
condition of probation provides sufficient grounds for the trial
court to revoke a defendant's probation. See, e.g., Braswell, 283
N.C. at 337, 196 S.E.2d at 188. Accordingly, because Defendant
cannot show prejudice from the assigned error, we affirm the trial
court's judgments.
Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***