State v. Miller

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Miller

221 S.E.2d 520, 28 N.C. App. 504, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2745

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 4, 1976

DocketNo. 758SC752

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 S.E.2d 520 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 221 S.E.2d 520, 28 N.C. App. 504, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2745 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends that the court erred in finding that he violated his probation. We agree. The conditions found to be violated are (1) that defendant violate no penal laws and be of good general behavior, and (2) that defendant work faithfully at suitable gainful employment. These two conclusions are supported by findings that defendant was a disciplinary problem in school and that he did not attend school in lieu of working.

There is no condition in defendant’s probation requiring that he attend school, and there is no evidence in the record that defendant did not work. Moreover, the finding that defendant was unruly and misbehaved in school does not constitute a violation of his condition to violate no penal laws and to be of general good behavior. Conduct amounting to a breach of the “good behavior” condition must be such as would constitute a violation of the criminal law of the State. State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 145 S.E. 2d 327 (1965) ; State v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602, 83 S.E. 2d 546 (1954).

The findings of the trial court do not constitute grounds for revocation of the probation. The order is vacated.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends that the court erred in finding that he violated his probation. We agree. The conditions found to be violated are (1) that defendant violate no penal laws and be of good general behavior, and (2) that defendant work faithfully at suitable gainful employment. These two conclusions are supported by findings that defendant was a disciplinary problem in school and that he did not attend school in lieu of working.

There is no condition in defendant’s probation requiring that he attend school, and there is no evidence in the record that defendant did not work. Moreover, the finding that defendant was unruly and misbehaved in school does not constitute a violation of his condition to violate no penal laws and to be of general good behavior. Conduct amounting to a breach of the “good behavior” condition must be such as would constitute a violation of the criminal law of the State. State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 145 S.E. 2d 327 (1965) ; State v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602, 83 S.E. 2d 546 (1954).

The findings of the trial court do not constitute grounds for revocation of the probation. The order is vacated.

Vacated and remanded.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 S.E.2d 520, 28 N.C. App. 504, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-ncctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack