An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-25

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 1 November 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Wilkes County
                                Nos. 02 CRS 50422, 50444
RONNIE LEE BULLARD,                        01 CRS 54213
    Defendant.

    
    Appeal by Defendant from judgments entered 4 November 2004 by Judge William Z. Wood, Jr., in Superior Court, Wilkes County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 October 2005.

    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 ***