State v Champion
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA05-1660 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 October 2006 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Harnett County No. 04 CRS 51117 STEPHEN KEITH CHAMPION Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 8 September 2005 by Judge Franklin F. Lanier in Harnett County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 September 2006. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Nancy R. Dunn, for the State. Terry F. Rose for defendant-appellant. CALABRIA, Judge. Stephen Keith Champion ( defendant ) appeals from a judgment of the trial court, revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentence. We find no error. On 5 May 2004, defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to financial card fraud and financial identity fraud. The trial court sentenced defendant for the financial identity fraud to a minimum of ten months to a maximum of twelve months in the North Carolina Department of Corrections. The trial court also sentenced defendant for financial card fraud to a minimum of six months and a maximum of eight months, to run concurrently with the -2sentence for financial identity fraud. suspended defendant s sentences and The trial court then placed him on supervised probation for thirty-six months. Defendant s probation officer subsequently filed violation reports that alleged defendant had violated his probation by failing to report and probation officer. to make his whereabouts known to his On 8 September 2005, the trial judge held a probation violation hearing in Harnett County Superior Court. At this hearing, defendant admitted willfully violating his probation. Defendant s counsel then requested that defendant be placed on intensive probation. The State countered we ve already tried that and requested that the trial court revoke his probation and activate his sentence. The trial court then determined defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation, revoked defendant s probation, and imprisonment in sentenced defendant the Carolina North to an active Department of term of Correction. Defendant appeals. Defendant s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by not considering placing him on intensive probation. Specifically, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on the prosecutor s statement that intensive probation had already been tried since there is no indication in the record that he had ever participated in intensive probation. condition probation. Our Supreme Court has held, Any violation of a valid of probation is sufficient to revoke defendant s All that is required to revoke probation is evidence -3satisfying the trial court in its discretion that the defendant violated a valid condition of probation without lawful excuse. State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987) (citations omitted). An abuse of discretion occurs if a trial court s determination is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary decision. it could not have been the result of a reasoned State v. Pendleton, __ N.C. App. __, __, 622 S.E.2d 708, 710 (2005). In the case sub judice, defendant admitted that he willfully violated the terms of his probation, and thus, it was within the trial court s discretion to revoke his probation. supra. See Tozzi, Moreover, the trial court was not required to consider alternate means of punishment other than incarceration, State v. Jones, 78 N.C. App. 507, 510, 337 S.E.2d 195, 198 (1985), and there is nothing in the record to support a contention that the trial court would have considered alternatives to incarceration but for the prosecutor s claim that defendant had already been on intensive probation. Accordingly, defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion, see Stone v. Stone, 96 N.C. App. 633, 634, 386 S.E.2d 602, 603 (1989) ( [t]he rulings . . . of the trial judge are presumed to be correct, and the burden is on the appealing party to rebut the presumption of verity on appeal ), and we find no error. No error. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge JACKSON 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.
