State v. Neal

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Neal

188 S.E.2d 47, 14 N.C. App. 238, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2093

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 26, 1972

Docket7227SC236

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 188 S.E.2d 47 (State v. Neal) 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. Neal, 188 S.E.2d 47, 14 N.C. App. 238, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2093 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

HEDRICK, Judge.

In this case, as in State v. Foust, 13 N.C. App. 382, 185 S.E. 2d 718 (1972), and State v. Huntley, 14 N.C. App. 236, 188 S.E. 2d 30 (1972) (filed at the same time as this opinion), the trial court’s findings of fact are not sufficient to support his conclusion that the defendant’s failure to make the payments set out in the probation judgment was willful or without lawful excuse.

[240]*240The judgment activating the suspended sentence is vacated and the proceeding is remanded for further hearing in order that the judge may determine, by appropriate findings of fact, whether the failure of defendant to make the required payments was willful or without lawful excuse. The judge’s findings of fact should be definite and not mere conclusions. State v. Foust, supra; State v. Caudle, 7 N.C. App. 276, 172 S.E. 2d 231 (rev’d on other grounds, 276 N.C. 550, 173 S.E. 2d 778); State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 103 S.E. 2d 376 (1958).

Vacated and remanded.

Judge Vaughn concurs. Judge Brock concurs in the result.

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

HEDRICK, Judge.

In this case, as in State v. Foust, 13 N.C. App. 382, 185 S.E. 2d 718 (1972), and State v. Huntley, 14 N.C. App. 236, 188 S.E. 2d 30 (1972) (filed at the same time as this opinion), the trial court’s findings of fact are not sufficient to support his conclusion that the defendant’s failure to make the payments set out in the probation judgment was willful or without lawful excuse.

[240]*240The judgment activating the suspended sentence is vacated and the proceeding is remanded for further hearing in order that the judge may determine, by appropriate findings of fact, whether the failure of defendant to make the required payments was willful or without lawful excuse. The judge’s findings of fact should be definite and not mere conclusions. State v. Foust, supra; State v. Caudle, 7 N.C. App. 276, 172 S.E. 2d 231 (rev’d on other grounds, 276 N.C. 550, 173 S.E. 2d 778); State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 103 S.E. 2d 376 (1958).

Vacated and remanded.

Judge Vaughn concurs. Judge Brock concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.E.2d 47, 14 N.C. App. 238, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-neal-ncctapp-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack