STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 05 CRS 52410
MICHAEL ANTWAN YOUNG
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Richard A. Graham, for the State.
Don Willey, for defendant-appellant.
On 5 December 2005, Michael Antwan Young (defendant) entered a no contest plea to two counts of indecent liberties in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. . 14-202.1. The trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen to eighteen months, suspended, and placed him on supervised probation for twenty months.
On 26 July 2006 defendant was served with a probation violation report, alleging that defendant violated his probation by failing to: (1) timely complete community service; (2) report to his probation officer; (3) make payments towards his indebtedness; (4) make payments towards his probation supervision fees; (5) attend sex offender classes; and (6) pay his community service fee. On 31 July 2006 the court entered an order of violation ofprobation and modified the original judgment by allowing defendant until 10 September 2006 to complete his community service.
On 11 September 2006 defendant was served with an addendum probation violation report, dated 18 August 2006, alleging that on 1 August 2006, defendant had changed his residence without notifying or obtaining permission from his probation officer. On 13 September 2006, the court revoked defendant's probation and activated his sentence of fifteen to eighteen months.
From this order, defendant appeals.
The Court: Well, I think it's  whether or
not on or about August 1, '06 defendant
informed his probation officer that he had
moved to [a different address]. Defendant
changed his address without permission of his
Defendant and defense counsel then admitted that defendant willfully failed to obtain prior approval from his probation officer before he changed his residence. Defendant testified that he notified his probation officer one week after the move. Counsel for defendant stated that defendant admitted to a willful violation of his probation. However, in its 13 September 2006 judgment, the trial court did not make findings with regard to defendant's failure to obtain approval for his change of address. Rather, the court referenced the alleged violations in paragraphs one through six of the 19 July 2006 report. This is due to a clerical error.
It is universally recognized that a court of record has the inherent power and duty to make its records speak the truth. It has the power to amend its records, correct the mistakes of its clerk or other officers of the court, or to supply defects or omissions in the record, and no lapse of time will debar the court of the power to discharge this duty.
State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 203, 535 S.E.2d 875, 879 (2000) (quoting State v. Cannon, 244 N.C. 399, 403, 94 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1956)).
Because it is abundantly clear from the record that the trial court revoked defendant's probation due to his change of residencewithout the permission of his probation officer, we agree with the State that the court's reference to the 19 July 2006 report in the written judgment is an obvious clerical error. Consequently, defendant's arguments related to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the revocation of his probation are without merit, and defendant's assignments of error are overruled.
However, we remand this matter for the correction of the clerical error to show that defendant violated paragraph one in the violation report served upon defendant 11 September 2006. See State v. Linemann, 135 N.C. App. 734, 738, 522 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1999) ('It is universally recognized that a court of record has the inherent power and duty to make its records speak the truth.' (quoting Cannon, 244 N.C. at 403, 94 S.E.2d at 342).
Counsel: Okay. And do you remember what date
you informed him[,] your probation officer
that you -- that you had moved?
Defendant: I'm not sure.
Due to defendant's own admission that he moved at least one week prior to notifying his probation officer, we conclude that there is not a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's admission, the result of the proceeding would have been different. The proceedings were free from prejudicial error. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court to revoke probation is left undisturbed.
Affirmed and remanded in part for correction of the order revoking probation.
Judges MCGEE and STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***