State v Medley
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA11-625 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 December 2011 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Cumberland County No. 08 CRS 50799 TIMOTHY JEROME MEDLEY JR. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 January 2011 by Judge Gregory A. Weeks in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 2011. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Hilda Burnett-Baker, for the State. Edward Eldred for defendant-appellant. ELMORE, Judge. Timothy Jerome Medley, Jr., (defendant) appeals from judgment which revoked his probation and activated his suspended sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment but remand for correction of a clerical error. On 14 October 2009, defendant pled guilty to one count of assault by strangulation and one count of child abuse. The trial and court consolidated the offenses for sentencing -2sentenced defendant imprisonment. The to twenty-three sentence was to thirty-seven suspended and months defendant placed on supervised probation for thirty-six months. was Special conditions of defendant s probation required defendant to report to the Day Reporting Center (DRC) for a period of six months, and to abide by all rules and regulations of the program. Defendant s violation report defendant had probation on 3 violated officer, March the James 2010. terms The of Harding, report his filed alleged probation a that by: (1) missing curfew; (2) failing to report to the GED and Life Skills classes at the local DRC; and (3) absconding. The matter was heard on 31 January 2011. testimony from probation officer Harding, After hearing the trial court determined that defendant willfully violated the conditions of his probation as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the violation report. The trial court specifically made no finding as to paragraph three, that defendant absconded. By written judgment entered 31 January 2011, the trial court revoked defendant s probation and activated his sentence based upon a finding that defendant violated violation report. Defendant all three conditions set forth in the Defendant appeals. first contends that the trial court s written -3judgment contains a clerical error because it shows that defendant willfully violated all three conditions of probation set out in the violation report. We agree. This Court has used the following definition of clerical error : [A]n inadvertence, record, and error esp. not in from resulting writing from or judicial a copying reasoning minor mistake something or on or the determination. State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 202, 535 S.E.2d 875, 878 (2000) (quoting Black s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)). Here, Judge Weeks found that defendant willfully violated his probation as specifically set forth in numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 of the violation report, but he did not make a finding as to the violation set forth in paragraph 3. Therefore, the written judgment should reflect only paragraphs 1 and 2 of the violation report. When, on appeal, a clerical error is discovered in the trial court s judgment or order, it is appropriate to remand the case to the trial court for correction because of the importance that the record speak the truth. App. 842, 845, 656 citation omitted). S.E.2d 695, State v. Smith, 188 N.C. 696 (2008) (quotations and Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for correction of this clerical error. Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in -4concluding that he willfully violated the terms of his probation by missing curfew and by failing to report to classes at the DRC. Preliminarily, we note that, although the trial court found that defendant violated his probation as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2, we find it dispositive that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that defendant failed to report to classes at the DRC under paragraph 2. See State v. Seay, 59 N.C. App. 667, 670-71, 298 S.E.2d 53, 55 (1982) (breach of any one condition is sufficient grounds to revoke probation). In order to revoke a defendant s probation, the evidence need only reasonably satisfy the [trial court] in the exercise of [its] sound discretion that the defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation or that the defendant has violated without lawful excuse a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 480 (1967). A verified probation violation report is competent evidence that a violation occurred. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 246, 154 S.E.2d 53, 58 (1967). defendant has demonstrating probation. the an burden inability of to presenting comply competent with the A evidence terms of State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987). [E]vidence of [a] defendant s failure to -5comply may justify a finding that [a] defendant s failure to comply was wilful or without lawful excuse. Id. A trial court s judgment revoking a defendant s probation will only be disturbed upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Guffey, 253 N.C. 43, 45, 116 S.E.2d 148, 150 (1960). We conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that defendant willfully violated probation without lawful excuse. a condition of his Here, it was alleged in the violation report that defendant willfully violated a condition of his probation by failing to [r]eport as directed by the probation officer to the Day Reporting Center for a period of 6 months, and abide by all rules and regulations of that program. The violation report specifically alleged that defendant failed to report to GED and Life Skills classes. Harding s testimony reflects that, as part of the program at the DRC, defendant was required to attend GED classes Monday through Thursday, and to attend Life Skills classes on Friday. Harding testified to the following: agreement (1) defendant signed an regarding the requirements of the DRC program; (2) in October 2009, Harding informed defendant he had to attend the classes; and (3) in January 2010, Harding and defendant had a conversation about defendant s duty to attend the DRC program and its classes. -6Harding testified that DRC students were required to sign in each day, and that [a]ll attendance by signing in. students know that they check Harding further testified that he checked the sign-in sheet each week and that defendant had not signed in on 3, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 February 2010. A defendant has the burden of showing excuse or lack of willfulness; otherwise, evidence of failure to comply is sufficient to support a finding that the violation was willful or without lawful excuse. State v. Crouch, 74 N.C. App. 565, 567, 328 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1985). We hold that there is evidence in trial the record defendant to support willfully and the without court s lawful excuse findings violated that the conditions of his probation by not reporting to the DRC for classes. discretion sentence. We further hold that it was within the trial court s to revoke defendant s Accordingly, the probation trial and court s activate judgment his upon revocation is affirmed and remanded for correction of a clerical error. Affirmed and remanded for correction of clerical error. Judges McGEE 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.
