Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » South Carolina » Court of Appeals » 2010 » State v Hancock
State v Hancock
State: South Carolina
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: 10-311
Case Date: 11/02/2010
Plaintiff: State
Defendant: Hancock
Preview:An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA10-311 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ABRAM LEE HANCOCK Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 3 December 2009 by Judge Kevin M. Bridges in Davidson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 2010. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Newton G. Pritchett, Jr., for the State. Irons & Irons, P.A., by Ben G. Irons, II, for defendantappellant. MARTIN, Chief Judge. Defendant pled no contest on 4 February 2004 to five counts of taking indecent liberties with a child. In accordance with the Davidson County Nos. 04 CRS 1343-44

plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to three consecutive active terms of imprisonment of 19 to 23 months and to two suspended terms of the same duration, to run at the expiration of the active terms. On 6 November 2009 defendant's probation

officer executed a violation report alleging defendant violated conditions of probation requiring him (1) to pay a monthly

probation supervision fee; (2) to comply with a sex offender control program condition mandating that he not socialize or

-2communicate with a person under the age of 18 in work or social activities unless accompanied by a responsible adult who is aware of the prior abuse; and (3) to notify the probation officer if he fails to obtain or retain satisfactory employment. After

conducting a hearing, the court found that defendant willfully and without lawful excuse committed the charged violations. revoked probation and activated the two sentences. Defendant first contends that he was not provided with In The court

adequate notice of the conditions of his release on probation.

support of this contention, he calls our attention to the lack of anything in the judgments suspending sentence stating that

defendant must participate in the sex offender control program and abide by the terms and conditions of the program. The governing statute with respect to notice of the conditions of probation is N.C.G.S.
Download 10-311-8.pdf

South Carolina Law

South Carolina State Law
South Carolina Tax
South Carolina Labor Laws
South Carolina Agencies

Comments

Tips