State v. Bryant

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Bryant

326 S.E.2d 910, 73 N.C. App. 647, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3319

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 19, 1985

Docket843SC552

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 326 S.E.2d 910 (State v. Bryant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bryant, 326 S.E.2d 910, 73 N.C. App. 647, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3319 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the order revoking defendant’s probation has the evidentiary support that the law requires. Relying upon the paucity of the State’s evidence, which established only defendant’s failure to make the payments ordered, defendant contends that the order is without support since the evidence does not show that he was able to make the payments. If this was a civil case and defendant had been found in civil contempt for not making the payments ordered, his point would be well taken. Brower v. Brower, 70 N.C. App. 131, 318 S.E. 2d 542 (1984). But in a criminal proceeding to revoke probation if a defendant fails to offer evidence of his inability to comply with the probationary terms, evidence establishing his non-compliance is sufficient to justify a finding that the failure was wilful or without lawful excuse. State v. Young, 21 N.C. App. 316, 204 S.E. 2d 185 (1974).

Affirmed.

Judges Webb and Martin concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PHILLIPS, Judge.

The only question presented by this appeal is whether the order revoking defendant’s probation has the evidentiary support that the law requires. Relying upon the paucity of the State’s evidence, which established only defendant’s failure to make the payments ordered, defendant contends that the order is without support since the evidence does not show that he was able to make the payments. If this was a civil case and defendant had been found in civil contempt for not making the payments ordered, his point would be well taken. Brower v. Brower, 70 N.C. App. 131, 318 S.E. 2d 542 (1984). But in a criminal proceeding to revoke probation if a defendant fails to offer evidence of his inability to comply with the probationary terms, evidence establishing his non-compliance is sufficient to justify a finding that the failure was wilful or without lawful excuse. State v. Young, 21 N.C. App. 316, 204 S.E. 2d 185 (1974).

Affirmed.

Judges Webb and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.E.2d 910, 73 N.C. App. 647, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bryant-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack