State v. Barnes
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA13-354 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 October 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Wake County Nos. 12 CRS 6364-66 SNOW SUTTON BARNES Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 30 August 2012 by Judge Lucy N. Inman in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lareena J. Phillips, for the State. William D. Spence for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Defendant entered after Snow Sutton Barnes the revocation of appeals her from the probation. judgments Defendant contends the trial court erred by making an extraneous finding of fact in the judgments and abused its discretion by failing to accept her excuse for violating her probation. judgments. We affirm the -2On 23 September 2010, defendant pled guilty to eight counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or forgery. convictions were consolidated consecutive terms of three to into three four judgments months The imposing imprisonment, the sentences were suspended, and defendant was placed on 24 months supervised probation. On 14 June 2012, defendant s probation officer filed violation reports alleging defendant had violated her probation by committing the same offense again on four dates in June and July 2011. At the probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted to the violations. Defendant asked the trial court to consider electronic arrest committed house the crimes medical conditions. as rather a than result of revocation chronic because pain and she other The trial court responded: I do sympathize, Ms. Barnes, with the chronic pain that you are reporting and the medical difficulties that you have. Unfortunately, committing the very same offense that you re on probation for is a very strong sign to the Court that you weren t a good candidate for probation in the first place. The trial court revoked defendant s probation and activated the suspended sentences. Defendant appeals. On appeal, defendant raises two issues: (I) whether the trial court erred in revoking defendant s probation pursuant to -3the Justice Reinvestment Act; and (II) whether the revocation of defendant s probation was an abuse of discretion. I Defendant first argues that the trial court s revocation of her probation was caused by emphasis placed upon her probation violation as a result of Justice Reinvestment Act. on the trial court s the trial court s reading of the Defendant s contention is predicated uncontested finding that defendant willful[ly] violat[ed] the condition(s) that he/she not commit any criminal offense, G.S. 15A-1343(b)(1)[.] Defendant s argument has no merit. [P]robation remains conditional and subject to revocation during the period of probation imposed[.] 15A-1342(a) (2011). satisfies its burden N.C. Gen. Stat. § Probation can be revoked when the State of proof to show that [the] defendant either willfully violated a term of probation or violated a condition without lawful excuse. State v. Sherrod, 191 N.C. App. 776, 778, 663 S.E.2d 470, 472 (2008) (citation omitted). Pursuant to General Statutes, section 15A-1343, as a regular condition of probation, a defendant must [c]ommit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction. (2011). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1) -4During her probation revocation hearing, defendant admitted violating the conditions of her probation, acknowledging that she had been convicted of obtaining a controlled substance by forgery and fraud for offenses occurring during her probation period. In accordance with this admission, on each of the three Judgment entered and Commitment against Upon defendant, Revocation the trial of Probation court under forms Findings checked a box under finding number five which acknowledges the willful commit violation any of criminal the condition(s) offense, G.S. that [defendant] 15A-1343(b)(1) . . not . . Defendant does not contest the accuracy of this finding or the sufficiency probation. of the finding as a ground for revoking her Accordingly, we overrule defendant s argument. II In her second argument, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation based on her admitted violations. We disagree. Probation comes as an act of grace to one convicted of crime. (1967) State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 351, 154 S.E.2d 476, 478 (citation omitted). A probationer s sentence may be activated if the evidence presented at the hearing is sufficient to reasonably satisfy the judge in the exercise of his sound -5discretion that the defendant has violated a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245, 154 S.E.2d 53, 57 (1967). The breach of any single valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended will support Braswell, 283 an order N.C. activating 332, 337, the 196 sentence. S.E.2d 185, State 188 v. (1973) (citation omitted). In this case, defendant admitted to violating her probation by committing the same offense for which she was originally placed on probation. considered The trial court s remarks indicate that it defendant s excuse for her violations and acted within its discretion in rejecting that excuse and activating defendant s suspended sentences. Accordingly, we judgments revoking probation. Affirmed. Judges HUNTER, Robert C., and McCULLOUGH concur. Report per Rule 30(e). affirm the
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.
