{ "id": 8555927, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY RAY SANDERS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sanders", "decision_date": "1973-11-14", "docket_number": "No. 7325SC589", "first_page": "751", "last_page": "753", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "19 N.C. App. 751" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "164 S.E. 2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "3 N.C. App. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553887 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/3/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 177", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 754", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627183 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0754-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622192 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0282-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 226, "char_count": 3583, "ocr_confidence": 0.525, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2060222429956341 }, "sha256": "9acaa7dc81e4bf8316dc0e930fd39e1dd032fc04fbabca9482823cf14256f95c", "simhash": "1:d7eb4343e72fcffe", "word_count": 590 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Baley concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY RAY SANDERS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant contends that he was not provided with proper notice of the hearing at which his probation was revoked, that evidence presented at time of hearing does not support the judgment, and that the court failed to make specific findings of fact as to his violation of the terms of the judgment placing him on probation.\nIn State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 103 S.E. 2d 376 (1958), our Supreme Court held that in order to activate a suspended sentence the trial court must find that the defendant has violated a valid condition of suspension and that such violation was without lawful excuse; and when the court fails to find specific facts supporting the conclusion that the violation was without lawful excuse, there is insufficient predicate for the order putting the suspended sentence into effect.\nIn State v. Davis, 243 N.C. 754, 92 S.E. 2d 177 (1956), the Supreme Court held that where the trial court fails to find wherein the defendant had violated the conditions of suspension, defendant is entitled to have the cause remanded for a specific finding in regard thereto, since only by such finding may the defendant test the validity of the condition for violation of which the suspended sentence was activiated.\nIn State v. Langley, 3 N.C. App. 189, 164 S.E. 2d 529 (1968), this court held that where, in a proceeding to revoke a judgment of probation, the trial court fails to make specific findings as to what condition of probation the defendant had violated, the order revoking the probation judgment must be vacated and the cause remanded for specific findings relating thereto.\nFor failure of the trial judge in the case at hand to make specific findings as to what condition of the suspended sentence or judgment of probation defendant had violated, this cause must be remanded for further hearing.\nRemanded.\nJudges Parker and Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Conrad O. Pearson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "West & Groome by J. Laird Jacob, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LARRY RAY SANDERS\nNo. 7325SC589\n(Filed 14 November 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 143 \u2014 revocation of suspended sentence \u2014 necessity for specific findings\nWhere, in a proceeding to revoke suspension of sentence, the trial court failed to make specific findings as to what condition of suspension defendant had violated, the order revoking the suspension of sentence must be vacated and the cause remanded for a specific finding relating thereto.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, Judge, 7 May 1973 Session Caldwell Superior Court.\nThe judgment from which defendant appeals provides in pertinent part as follows:\n\u201cThe defendant appeared before the Court this day after due notice upon an inquiry into an alleged violation of condition of suspension of the prison sentence imposed in that certain Judgment Suspending Sentence appearing of record in this case issued on the 11th day of October, 1972.\n\u201cFrom evidence presented, the Court finds as fact that within the specified period of suspension, the defendant has wilfully violated the terms and conditions of the probation judgment.\n\u201cIt is Adjudged that defendant has breached a valid condition upon which the execution of said sentence was suspended, and it is Ordered that such suspension be revoked and that said defendant be imprisoned: For the term of Not Less than three (3) years nor more than five (5) years In the North Carolina State Prison.\n\u201cIt is ordered that the defendant be given credit for 113 days spent in jail.\u201d\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Sidney S. Eagles, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Conrad O. Pearson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nWest & Groome by J. Laird Jacob, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0751-01", "first_page_order": 775, "last_page_order": 777 }