 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bowens4/19/2005
order to revoke a defendant's probation and activate a suspended sentence, the trial court must find based upon competent evidence "that the defendant has violated, without lawful excuse, a valid condition" of probation. State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 287, 103 S.E.2d 376, 380 (1958). A finding of even a single violation is sufficient to support the revocation of probation. See State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987). At a minimum, however, the court's judgment must identify "what condition of the suspended sentence or judgment of probation defendant had violated." See State v. Sanders, 19 N.C. App. 751, 753, 200 S.E.2d 221, 222 (1973). Moreover, if the defendant offers evidence of a lawful excuse for his failure to comply with the conditions of probation, the trial court must enter findings reflecting its consideration of such evidence. State v. Smith, 43 N.C. App. 727, 732, 259 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1979). Where the defendant stipulates to the allegations in a probation violation report and offers no competent evidence to explain his violation, the trial court need not make specific findings regarding his ability to comply. State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985).
The judgment before us does not identify the nature of defendant's probation violation or violations and contains no finding of willfulness or lack of a lawful excuse. We further find nothing in the record to reflect whether the court found a single violation or multiple violations of defendant's probation, whether it relied in whole or in part upon violations for which defendant offered evidence of a lawful excuse, whether it considered defendant's evidence, or whether it deemed a violation for which defendant offered no lawful excuse to be sufficient to support revocation. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and remand to the trial court for a new hearing. See State v. Hill, 132 N.C. App. 209, 212, 510 S.E.2d 413, 415 (1999). Vacated and remanded.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|