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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 20 November 2007
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Guilford County
Nos. 02 CRS 101021 - 101024
AARON DWIGHT CLARK
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 7 November 2006 by
Judge Richard L. Doughton in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 16 November 2007.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Donald R. Teeter, for the State.
Allen W. Boyer, for defendant-appellant.
Aaron Dwight Clark (defendant) appeals from judgment entered
revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentences for
his convictions of felonious hit and run pursuant N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 20-166(a), reckless driving with wanton disregard pursuant N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 20-140(a), driving while license revoked pursuant N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 20-28(a), and filing a false report of theft of motor
vehicle pursuant N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-102.1. We dismiss
On 14 August 2003, defendant pled guilty to felonious hit and
run, reckless driving with wanton disregard, driving while license
revoked, and falsely reporting the theft of a motor vehicle. Thetrial court sentenced defendant to a minimum of fifteen to eighteen
months maximum imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed
defendant on supervised probation for five years. In lieu of the
standard condition of probation requiring regular visits with the
probation officer, the trial court ordered defendant [n]ot [to]
operate a motor vehicle while on probation, or until he is licensed
to do so by DMV and to notify his probation officer immediately
if he obtained a motor vehicle.
In a probation violation report filed on 13 June 2006,
defendant was charged with violating the conditions of his
probation by being charged on 16 November 2005 and convicted on 14
March 2006 of driving while license revoked. The probation
violation report also alleged defendant was again charged with
driving while license revoked on 13 February 2006 and was awaiting
At his probation revocation hearing on 7 November 2006,
defendant admitted the violations and further admitted he had
committed these violations willfully and without lawful excuse.
The probation officer informed the court defendant had received a
prayer for judgment following his 14 March 2006 conviction for
driving while license revoked, and that his 13 February 2006
charges of driving while license revoked and driving without
insurance had been dismissed. Defense counsel acknowledged that
defendant had been caught twice while driving home from work, but
claimed he was no longer driving. After hearing arguments, thetrial court revoked defendant's probation and activated his
suspended sentences. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by finding and
concluding he violated his probation without finding him to be
guilty of driving while license revoked.
III. Probation Violation
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by
finding that he violated the regular condition of probation
requiring him to commit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction
pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1), and a prayer for
judgment without any sentencing conditions does not constitute a
judgment or conviction[.] Defendant further contends N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1) is intended to include only conviction[s]
where judgment has been imposed and where the probationer has had
the opportunity to appeal the conviction giving rise to the charged
Defendant did not present this argument to the trial court.
Instead, he admitted to willfully violating the conditions of his
probation as alleged in the report filed by his probation officer.
In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must
have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or
motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party
desired the court to make[,] and must have obtain[ed] a ruling
thereon. N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1) (2007). We hold that defendant'sassignment of error is not properly before this Court. This
assignment of error is dismissed.
Defendant's sole assignment of error was not presented to the
trial court and is not properly before this Court. Id
Defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Judges GEER and STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***