STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Craven County
No. 05 CRS 53837
RAPHAEL RONDALE WARD
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney
General Brenda Eaddy, for the State.
Jeffrey Evan Noecker, for defendant-appellant.
JACKSON, Judge.
On 14 November 2005, Raphael Rondale Ward (“defendant”) pled
guilty to a charge of indecent liberties with a child and was
sentenced to sixteen to twenty months imprisonment. The trial
court suspended the sentence and placed defendant on thirty-six
months of supervised probation.
On 3 August 2006, defendant's probation officer filed a
probation violation report alleging that defendant (1) was in
arrears on the monetary conditions of his probation; (2) had failed
to complete the required psychological assessment and treatment;
and (3) had been terminated from his vocational training program
for failing to report to work and following the program's rules. On 18 September 2006, the trial court conducted a probation
violation hearing. At the hearing, defendant, through his counsel,
admitted to each of the alleged violations. Although defendant
provided no explanation as to his failure to comply with the
monetary conditions of his probation, he asserted that he had not
participated in a psychological evaluation or treatment because he
did not know where to go for the evaluation. Further, defendant
admitted that he had been dismissed from the vocational training
program due to missing two scheduled work shifts, but also asserted
that he was currently employed. Following the hearing, the trial
court found that defendant had violated his probation as alleged in
the violation report, revoked defendant's probation, and activated
his sentence.
On 21 September 2006, defendant filed a motion for appropriate
relief in which he asserted that his counsel's representations at
the hearing that defendant had failed to complete a psychological
evaluation were incorrect. Defendant's counsel represented that
although defendant had informed counsel that he had not had an
evaluation, counsel since had learned that defendant had undergone
a complete psychological evaluation. On 10 October 2006, the trial
court denied defendant's motion for appropriate relief, concluding
that even if defendant were permitted to withdraw his admission as
to the psychological assessment, the trial court would revoke
probation on the grounds of the other admitted probation
violations. On appeal, defendant's sole assignment of error is that the
trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation rather
than increasing his level of probation supervision. Specifically,
defendant asserts that the trial court's failure to impose a lesser
penalty was an abuse of discretion because defendant (1) was in
compliance with other conditions of probation; and (2) had been
employed at the time of the hearing.
To revoke a defendant's probation, the trial court need only
find that the defendant has “willfully violated a valid condition
of probation or that the defendant has violated without lawful
excuse a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended.”
State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1967).
The breach of any one condition of probation is sufficient grounds
to revoke a defendant's probation. State v. Seay, 59 N.C. App. 667,
670.71, 298 S.E.2d 53, 55 (1982), disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 701,
301 S.E.2d 394 (1983). A trial court's judgment revoking a
defendant's probation will only be disturbed upon a showing of a
manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Guffey, 253 N.C. 43, 45, 116
S.E.2d 148, 150 (1960).
Notwithstanding the question of whether defendant complied
with the condition of psychological evaluation and treatment,
defendant admitted that he was terminated from a court-ordered work
training program for failure to report to work on two occasions
and offered only the vague excuse of having moved his residence
during those two days. In addition, defendant provided no
explanation regarding his failure to comply with the monetaryconditions of his probation. In light of these violations, we
conclude the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by
revoking defendant's probation.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***