State v. Taylor
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e . NO. COA13-1391 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 July 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Hoke County No. 08 CRS 52552 BILLY EUGENE TAYLOR Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 July 2013 by Judge Tanya T. Wallace in Hoke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 June 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Justin M. Hampton, for the State. Ryan McKaig for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Where defendant allegations, counsel received appeared admitted to at the a notice probation violations of probation hearing, alleged in and the violation through violation report, a subsequent revocation of defendant s probation does not violate due process. -2On 15 a sex notify the sheriff of defendant s change of address, a class F felony. The offender September 2009, registration defendant violation for pled guilty failure to to court sentenced defendant to a minimum term of twenty months and a maximum term of twenty-four months. sentence and placed defendant period of thirty-six months. on The court suspended the supervised probation for a The court extended the term of probation by eighteen months on 3 December 2012 upon finding defendant violated terms or conditions of probation. On 21 March 2013, defendant s probation officer filed a violation report averring defendant violated conditions requiring payment of money and abstinence from commission of criminal offenses. At the call of the violation report for hearing on 15 July 2013, defendant s attorney waived a formal reading of the violations and defendant admitted the violations were committed. statements that the by After defendant s allegations of hearing probation the arguments officer, violation of the report counsel court were and found true and correct beyond a reasonable doubt and that one of the violations was for conviction of a new criminal offense. The court directed activation of the sentence and placed defendant in the custody of the sheriff. Defendant appeals. -3_____________________________ In his sole argument court erred by failing to on appeal, defendant make inquiry to contends the determine whether defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a probation violation hearing. We disagree. In State v. Sellers, 185 N.C. App. 726, 649 S.E.2d 656 (2007), this Court rejected the defendant s contention that the trial court erred in activating a sentence when the defendant did not personally waive a violation violated a condition of probation. hearing or admit he We stated: Defendant received notice of his alleged probation violations, and a hearing was held. Defendant admitted to the first two violations contained in the probation violation report. Unlike when a defendant pleads guilty, there is no requirement that the trial court personally examine a defendant regarding his admission that he violated his probation. . . . Therefore, we conclude there was no violation of [the] Defendant s right to due process or any statutory violation. Id. at 728 29, 649 S.E.2d at 657 58 (citation omitted). We are unable to materially distinguish the case at bar from Sellers. violations, Here, defendant s defendant attorney received admitted notice to of the commission of violations of probation at the call of the matter for hearing, and the court conducted a hearing at which the court heard -4argument from counsel urging the court not to revoke defendant s probation. See id. at 727, 649 S.E.2d at 656 (finding that a probation revocation hearing is not a formal trial and, as such, due process does not require that the trial court personally examine a defendant regarding his admission that he violated his probation. ). Accordingly, the trial court did not failing to make personal inquiry of defendant. Affirmed. Judges STROUD and HUNTER, Robert N., Jr., concur. Report per Rule 30(e). err by
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.
