Return to nccourts.org
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-1708

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 3 July 2007

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

         v.                        Wake County
                                No. 03 CRS 122776-77;
                                03 CRS 17779-88
LASON CASEEM ALERS
    

    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 June 2006 by Judge Kenneth C. Titus in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 June 2007.

    Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gaines M. Weaver, attorney for the State.

    William D. Spence, attorney for defendant-appellant.

    MARTIN, Chief Judge.

    Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation and activation of his sentence. On 11 March 2003 defendant pled guilty to twenty counts of felony drug offenses. On 28 October 2004, defendant was sentenced to a minimum of 70 months and a maximum of 84 months imprisonment which was suspended in lieu of 36 months supervised probation and a monetary fine.
    On 30 March 2006, defendant's probation officer filed a probation violation report alleging that defendant had violated his probation by being in arrears on his monetary conditions of probation and by committing additional criminal offenses. Specifically, the violation report alleged that defendant wasconvicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and manufacturing cocaine on 1 December 2005 and given a sentence of active imprisonment of six to eight months on each charge to run consecutively.
    On 19 June 2006, the trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing. The trial court found that defendant had violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation and activated his sentence. At the close of the hearing, the trial court made the following oral ruling:
            All right. Here's what I will do. What I will do is find that the violation of his probation occurred at the time he was convicted of subsequent offenses and received an active sentence. Through no fault of the probation officer, they were unaware that he was serving an active sentence, and the serving of the violation itself was delayed until he was at the conclusion of his sentence, and he otherwise would have been entitled to have credit for both of these because they were not directed to be run consecutively.

            So what I'll do is find that there was an administrative error in the failure to serve him at the time of the beginning of the incarceration on the other sentences and give him credit for the 12 months -- the six-to-eight back to back that he received; that the active sentence is toward the active portion on this sentence.

(emphasis added). Though the trial court's oral pronouncement demonstrates that defendant's probation was being revoked due to his having committed additional crimes while on probation, the written judgement and commitment of revocation of probationreferences paragraphs one and two of the violation report which correspond to the alleged monetary violations.
    On appeal, defendant attempts to challenge the trial court's revocation of his probation on the grounds that no evidence was presented at the hearing showing that his failure to comply with the monetary conditions of his probation were willful. Defendant is correct that there was no such evidence presented. However, this was clearly due to defendant's immediate admission to the willful violation of his probation by committing additional crimes. Because it is abundantly clear from the record that the trial court revoked defendant's probation due to his additional convictions, we agree with the State that the reference to the monetary conditions in the written judgment is an obvious clerical error. Consequently, defendant's arguments related to violation of the monetary conditions 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 three in the violation report filed 30 March 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.”) (citing State v. Cannon, 244 N.C. 399, 403, 94 S.E.2d 339, 342 (1956)).
    Affirmed and remanded in part for correction of the order revoking probation.
    Judges CALABRIA and JACKSON concur.    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***