STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Cumberland County
Nos. 04 CRS 58047-48
JAMES TRAVIS LINDAHL 04 CRS 54407
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Larissa S. Ellerbee, for the State.
Allen W. Boyer for defendant-appellant.
MARTIN, Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals from judgments entered upon revocation of
his probation. We affirm.
On 9 February 2005, defendant pled guilty to one count of larceny of a dog and two counts each of forgery and uttering. He was sentenced to three consecutive suspended prison terms and was placed on two years of supervised probation.
In reports filed 14 April 2005, defendant was charged with the following willful violations of the conditions of his probation: (1) failing to sign up with the Community Service Coordinator to perform the community service ordered in 04 CRS 54407; (2) failing to report to his probation officer on two occasions; (3) missing curfew on five occasions; (4) failing to satisfy the monetaryconditions of his probation in 04 CRS 54407; (5) leaving his place of residence without making his whereabouts known to his probation officer; (6) failing to obtain suitable employment; and (7) failing to report for a TASC assessment. At his revocation hearing, defendant's counsel admitted all of the alleged violations but asked to be heard as to defendant's lack of willfulness. After hearing from defendant's counsel and probation officer, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his suspended sentences. While finding that defendant lacked the ability to comply with the monetary conditions of his probation, the court found all of the remaining violations to be willful and without lawful excuse. All of the trial court's judgments include a finding that [e]ach violation is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis upon which this Court should revoke probation and activate the suspended sentence[s].
On appeal, defendant claims that the trial court erred in finding that his violations were willful despite his counsel's explanation that he had been evicted from his mother's house and was essentially homeless between 9 February 2005 and 14 April 2005, the period covered by the violation reports. As noted above, however, defendant did not adduce competent evidence of a lack of willfulness at the hearing, relying instead on the representations of his counsel. See State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985) (holding that counsel's statements were not competent evidence, and that the trial court was not, therefore, under a duty to make specific findings with respect to defendant'salleged inability to comply.). Moreover, counsel's proffer had no tendency to show that defendant lacked the ability to contact his probation officer or his Community Service Coordinator, to obtain employment, or to register for a TASC assessment. Defendant admitted each of these violations, any one of which was sufficient to support revocation. See, e.g., State v. Freeman, 47 N.C. App. 171, 176, 266 S.E.2d 723, 725 (citing State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337, 196 S.E.2d 185, 188 (1973)), disc. review denied, 301 N.C. 99, 273 S.E.2d 304 (1980). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. at 568, 328 S.E.2d at 835. Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***