State v. Clark

223 S.E.2d 843, 29 N.C. App. 213, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2444
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Clark. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 N.C. App. 81
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided April 21, 1976·No. No. 7527SC965·Published

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

By his one assignment of error, defendant contends the evidence adduced at the hearing does not support the findings and conclusion that defendant willfully violated the terms and conditions of probation.

Whether the defendant had willfully violated the conditions of his probation is a question of fact to be determined by the judge. State v. Barrett, 243 N.C. 686, 91 S.E. 2d 917 (1956). Findings of fact based on evidence which reasonably satisfies the judge, in the exercise of his sound discretion, that the defendant has violated a valid condition of probation will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 145 S.E. 2d 327 (1965).

We find and hold that the evidence is ample to support the material findings that the defendant willfully violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Moréis and Arnold concur.

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

State v. Clark, 223 S.E.2d 843, 29 N.C. App. 213, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2444 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

223 S.E.2d 843 (State v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Seagraves
145 S.E.2d 327 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Barrett
91 S.E.2d 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)