State v. Dement

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Dement

255 S.E.2d 793, 42 N.C. App. 254, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2804

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 3, 1979

Docket799SC297

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 S.E.2d 793 (State v. Dement) 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. Dement, 255 S.E.2d 793, 42 N.C. App. 254, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2804 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

MITCHELL, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in requiring his counsel to represent him in the probation revocation hearing only two hours after the appointment of counsel by the court. Neither the defendant nor his attorney requested that the court grant additional time to prepare a defense. Nothing in the record suggests that the defendant’s attorney did not have ample time to prepare any defense the defendant may have had. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled. See State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967).

The defendant next assigns as error the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court and contends that they were not supported by the evidence. Sufficient evidence was presented in the verified and uncontradicted violation report served upon the defendant to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53 (1967). Additionally, the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant’s probation officer was sufficient to support the findings and conclusions. This assignment of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is free from reversible error and is

Affirmed.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.

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

MITCHELL, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in requiring his counsel to represent him in the probation revocation hearing only two hours after the appointment of counsel by the court. Neither the defendant nor his attorney requested that the court grant additional time to prepare a defense. Nothing in the record suggests that the defendant’s attorney did not have ample time to prepare any defense the defendant may have had. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled. See State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967).

The defendant next assigns as error the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court and contends that they were not supported by the evidence. Sufficient evidence was presented in the verified and uncontradicted violation report served upon the defendant to support the trial court’s findings and conclusions. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53 (1967). Additionally, the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant’s probation officer was sufficient to support the findings and conclusions. This assignment of error is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is free from reversible error and is

Affirmed.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 S.E.2d 793, 42 N.C. App. 254, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dement-ncctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack