Return to
Return to the Opinions Page
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedure.

NO. COA06-524


Filed: 19 June 2007


v .                          Jackson County
                             No. 04 CRS 51455

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 27 January 2006 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. in Jackson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2007.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann Stone, for the State.

    William D. Auman for defendant-appellant.

    MARTIN, Chief Judge.

    On 23 February 2005, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of obtaining property by false pretense, a Class H felony. He received a ten to twelve month suspended sentence and was placed on supervised probation. On 6 October 2005, defendant was served with a probation violation report alleging he had violated the terms of his probation in three respects.
    Defendant requested court-appointed counsel for his probation violation hearing. On 28 November 2005, the trial court determined, after reviewing defendant's affidavit, that he was financially able to provide the necessary expenses of his legal representation. After a hearing on 27 January 2006, the trial court found that defendant had violated his probation as alleged inparagraphs 1 and 2 of the violation report and activated his suspended sentence. Defendant appeals.
    Defendant makes but one contention on appeal, that the trial court erred and violated his constitutional rights in denying his request for court-appointed counsel to represent him at his probation violation hearing. We disagree.
    “An indigent person is a person who is financially unable to secure legal representation and to provide all other necessary expenses of representation . . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-450(a) (2005). According to defendant's Affidavit of Indigency signed 28 November 2005, he had no dependents, made $500 per month, and had expenses of $270 per month. In addition, he had an income tax refund of $250. We conclude such evidence was sufficient to sustain the trial court's finding that defendant was financially able to secure legal representation and to provide all other necessary expenses of representation for the probation hearing. It is irrelevant that the court determined defendant to be indigent at the time of the hearing on the false pretense charges. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-450(c) (2005) (“The question of indigency may be determined or redetermined by the court at any stage of the action or proceeding at which an indigent is entitled to representation.”)
    Judges STEELMAN and STEPHENS concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***