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An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute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. COA06-316
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                          7 November  2006
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.                                                                                              Moore County
Nos.  04 CRS  55336;
JOHNNY COLON LUCK, JR.                                                                          05 CRS  50536;
52036;  52424
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 13 December 2005 by
Judge James M. Webb in Moore County Superior Court.    Heard in the
Court of Appeals  2 October  2006.
Attorney  General  Roy  A.  Cooper,  III,  by  Special  Deputy
Attorney General Robert C. Montgomery and Assistant Attorney
General Hilda Burnett-Baker, for the State.
James M. Bell, for defendant-appellant.
JACKSON, Judge.
On 6 September 2005, Johnny Colon Luck, Jr. (“defendant”) was
convicted  of  two  counts  of  obtaining  property  by  false  pretenses
and two counts of breaking or entering.   Defendant’s sentences were
suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for thirty-six
months.
On  11  November  2005,  probation  violation  reports  were  filed
alleging that defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his
probation.    Specifically, the reports alleged that defendant:  (1)
had tested positive for cocaine on 11 October 2005; (2) had failed




-2-
to complete any community service; (3) had failed to report to his
probation officer; (4) had violated curfew; (5) had absconded; and
(6) was in arrears on his monetary obligations.
On 12 December 2005, a probation violation hearing was held in
Moore County Superior Court.    Defendant admitted the allegations,
but denied they were willful.   Defendant testified that he had been
treated  for                                                                  “personality,  anger,   [and]  mood  disorder”  and  was
placed  on  medication  that  affected  his  short-term  memory,  his
ability to focus, and caused physical side effects.    He testified
that his medication was changed in late October  2005, although he
still  was  having  problems  with  his  medication  at  the  time  of  the
hearing.   Defendant stated that if placed on the proper medication
he  would  be  able  to  complete  his  probation.    However,  the  trial
court  found  defendant  willfully  had  violated  the  terms  of  his
probation.     Accordingly,  the  trial  court  revoked  defendant’s
probation and activated his suspended sentences.   Defendant appeals
from  the  revocation  of  his  probation  and  the  activation  of  his
sentences.
Defendant  argues  the  trial  court  abused  its  discretion  by
revoking his probation because the evidence demonstrated that:
[d]uring   the   crucial   period   when   he   was
alleged to be willfully violating the terms of
his  probation,  he  was  experiencing  problems
with  his  medications  causing  him  to  have
short-term memory loss.    His ability to focus
was also affected.
Defendant thus argues that his violations were not willful.
After careful review of the record, briefs, and contentions of
the parties, we find no error.    This Court has stated:




-3-
[a]ny   violation   of   a   valid   condition   of
probation is sufficient to revoke defendant’s
probation.     All  that  is  required  to  revoke
probation  is  evidence  satisfying  the  trial
court  in  its  discretion  that  the  defendant
violated   a   valid   condition   of   probation
without  lawful  excuse.     The  burden  is  on
defendant to present competent evidence of his
inability  to  comply  with  the  conditions  of
probation;    and  that  otherwise,  evidence  of
defendant’s  failure  to  comply  may  justify  a
finding that defendant’s failure to comply was
wilful or without lawful excuse.
State v. Tozzi,  84 N.C. App.  517,  521,  353 S.E.2d  250,  253  (1987)
(internal citations omitted).
In  the  case  sub  judice,  the  State  alleged  that  defendant
violated  his  probation  by  testing  positive  for  cocaine  on             11
October  2005.    The  defendant  has  the  burden  of  showing  excuse  or
lack  of  willfulness  and  if  the  defendant  fails  to  carry  this
burden,  evidence  of  failure  to  comply  is  sufficient  to  support  a
finding  that  the  violation  was  willful  or  without  lawful  excuse.
State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985).
Defendant  admitted  that  he  did  not  comply  with  the  terms  of  his
probation,  offering  as  an  excuse  that  his  medication  was  changed
and  caused  side  effects.    However,  the  evidence  before  the  trial
court was that his medication was changed in late October, after he
tested positive for cocaine.   The only excuse offered by defendant
as  to  why  he  smoked  crack  cocaine  was  that  he  was  “frustrated.”
Accordingly, we conclude it was within the trial court’s discretion
to revoke defendant’s probation.
Because  there  were  sufficient  grounds  to  revoke  defendant’s
probation,  we  need  not  consider  defendant’s  remaining  probation
violations.
No error.




-4-
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judges CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 06-316-5.pdf

South Carolina Law