State v Wood
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA11-464 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 November 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Buncombe County Nos. 08 CRS 430 08 CRS 51137-38 AUSTON CORLEY WOOD Appeal by Defendant from judgment entered 13 January 2011 by Judge Mark E. Powell in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 November 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Gaines M. Weaver, for the State. Edward Eldred for Defendant-Appellant. McGEE, Judge. Auston Corley Wood (Defendant) appeals from judgment entered revoking his probation and activating his sentence for multiple drug offenses. Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the revocation of probation hearing. Defendant paraphernalia, pleaded possession guilty with to intent We affirm. possession to sell or of drug deliver a -2controlled substance, and felonious possession of a controlled substance on 20 May 2009. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the offenses were consolidated for judgment, and Defendant received a suspended sentence of six to eight months and was placed on probation for thirty-six months. Defendant's probation officer filed a report on 1 July 2009, alleging that Defendant violated his probation by testing positive for marijuana on 27 May 2009. On 7 August 2009, Defendant admitted the violation and the trial court continued Defendant's probation on condition that Defendant participate in a drug treatment program. Defendant's violation probation report on 10 officer August filed 2010, a second alleging probation the following violations: (1) on 14 June 2010, Defendant missed a scheduled appointment with the probation officer; (2) Defendant was in arrears in the amount of $1,254.74 in his court-ordered payments; (3) Defendant was in arrears in the amount of $450.00 in his probation supervision fees; and (4) Defendant absconded supervision by failing to make himself available. The probation revocation hearing was held on 13 January 2011. Defendant Defendant's moved probation to officer continue was court denied Defendant's motion. not the hearing available. because The trial After Defendant admitted the -3violations, the trial court determined that Defendant willfully violated the Defendant's terms of probation his be probation revoked. The judgment activating Defendant's sentence. and ordered trial court that entered Defendant appeals. As an initial matter, we address the State's argument that Defendant's appeal should be dismissed as moot since Defendant was scheduled to be released from the State's custody in July of 2011. The appeal is not moot, however, since Defendant's probation violation may be used as an aggravating factor to enhance a sentence in future cases pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 15A-1340.16(d)(12a) (2009). 377, 677 S.E.2d 199, 202 State v. Black, 197 N.C. App. 373, (2009). Thus, "'collateral legal consequences of an adverse nature can reasonably be expected to result therefrom significance' . for . . and the defendant." appeal Id. has continued (citation legal omitted). Therefore, we address Defendant's argument on the merits. Defendant contends the denial of his motion to continue violated his constitutional right to present beneficial evidence in order to confront the allegations against him. "When a motion for continuance raises a constitutional issue, the trial court's ruling is a question of law and is fully reviewable on appeal." State v. Cody, 135 N.C. App. 722, 725, 522 S.E.2d 777, -4779 (1999). In moving for a continuance, a defendant must provide proof establishing the reasons for delay and must show material prejudice. Id. at 726, 522 S.E.2d at 780. Whether based on a constitutional claim or not, a new trial is warranted only when a defendant is able to show that the denial of the continuance was error and that his defense was prejudiced as a result. State v. Branch, 306 N.C. 101, 104, 291 S.E.2d 653, 656 (1982). In this case, Defendant made an oral motion to continue his probation revocation hearing at the beginning of the hearing because his probation officer, David Barbour (Mr. Barbour), was not available and supervision of Defendant's case had been assumed by another probation officer. Defense counsel stated to the know trial court that she did not the case had been transferred, and that "Mr. Barber [sic] would have good things to say about" Defendant, although she then equivocated, stating that "[m]aybe he has bad things to say, but I have a feeling he would have positive things to say." statements did not constitute We conclude that counsel's sufficiently detailed proof of adequate reasons for delaying the probation revocation hearing where she was unable to say whether Mr. Barbour's testimony would be positive or negative. -5Further, we conclude Defendant has failed to show denial of his motion materially prejudiced his defense. that It was Mr. Barbour who filed the violation report against Defendant, listing four separate violations, absconded from supervision. with Mr. Barbour only once. including that Defendant Defendant admitted that he had met It is unlikely Mr. Barbour would have provided sufficient positive evidence to offset the very same violations he submitted to the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to continue. Affirmed. Judges ELMORE and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
