 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Harrington12/3/1985
speech, and had difficulty answering routine questions. Defendant could not perform any of the four field sobriety tests satisfactorily. Defendant's BAC was .14; he admitted to Davis that he was under the influence of alcohol. The evidence showed a person seriously affected by alcohol. We believe the court's finding was proper. The assignment is overruled.
IV
As a condition of probation, the court required that defendant " ot go upon the premises of any business or private club
licensed by the State of North Carolina for the sale or the on premises consumption of alcoholic beverages between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following day." Defendant assigns error, arguing that this condition was unduly burdensome and unrelated to his rehabilitation.
Under G.S. 15A-1343(b1)(9), formerly G.S. 15A-1343(b)(17), the trial court may in addition to the statutorily described conditions impose "any other conditions . . . reasonably related to [defendant's] rehabilitation." The court has substantial discretion in devising conditions under this section. See State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 315 S.E.2d 492, cert. denied, 311 N.C. 767, 319 S.E.2d 284 (1984), appeal dismissed, U.S. , 83 L. Ed. 2d 766, 105 S. Ct. 769 (1985). A variety of conditions have been found "reasonably related" under this section. State v. Cooper, 304 N.C. 180, 282 S.E.2d 436 (1981) (stolen goods offense; defendant not operate motor vehicle between 12:01 a.m. and 5:30 a.m.); State v. Rogers, supra (witness tampering; defendant not practice law); State v. Simpson, 25 N.C. App. 176, 212 S.E.2d 566 (false pretenses in construction contract; limiting defendant's construction employment), cert. denied, 287 N.C. 263, 214 S.E.2d 436 (1975). In none of these cases was the restriction found unduly burdensome.
The contested condition here did not restrict defendant's livelihood, compare Rogers and Simpson, nor did it prevent him from entering any premises during the day and even purchasing alcohol. Rather it reasonably is aimed at preventing recurrence of the subject misconduct by keeping defendant away from alcohol in public places during the hours when he would most likely be tempted to drink and drive. The loss of some convenience in shopping does not appear unduly oppressive when compared to the restrictions on employment previously approved in the cases cited. The assignment is therefore overruled.
Conclusion
We conclude that defendant has not shown any prejudicial error in the trial, that the sentence was within the limits allowed by law for this offense, and that the complained of conditions of probation were reasonably related to defendant's rehabilitation.
No error.
Disposition
No error.
|