{ "id": 8551421, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS EARL BLOUNT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blount", "decision_date": "1975-01-02", "docket_number": "No. 743SC713", "first_page": "390", "last_page": "392", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "24 N.C. App. 390" } ], "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": "83 S.E. 2d 546", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606268 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "605" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559735 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N.C. App. 696", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553742 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/23/0696-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 778", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562498 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0550-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 295, "char_count": 4903, "ocr_confidence": 0.566, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2059162522602669 }, "sha256": "fbfbf7a7f5310afc7e8538b6adfbe98471211129e5f5ddfeef402df1a6bdc062", "simhash": "1:96be47d0519c5e5b", "word_count": 822 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS EARL BLOUNT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BEOCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of' error challenges the sufficiency of the findings of fact made by the trial judge and relied upon for the order revoking probation.\nA defendant who consents to the suspension of a sentence upon specified conditions may not attack an order putting the sentence into effect \u201cexcept: (1) On the ground that there is no evidence to support a finding of a breach of the conditions of suspension; or (2) on the ground that the condition which he has broken is invalid because it is unreasonable or is imposed for an unreasonable length of time.\u201d State v. Caudle, 276 N.C. 550, 553, 173 S.E. 2d 778; State v. Johnson, 23 N.C. App. 696, 209 S.E. 2d 549.\nEvidence sufficient to support a finding of breach of probationary conditions is that which reasonably satisfies, \u201cthe judge, in the exercise of his sound discretion, that the defendant has violated a valid condition upon which the sentence was so suspended.\u201d State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 113, 145 S.E. 2d 327; State v. Johnson, supra. The evidence must be substantial and \u201cof sufficient probative force to generate in the minds of reasonable men the conclusion that the defendant has in fact breached the condition in question.\u201d State v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602, 605, 83 S.E. 2d 546; State v. Johnson, supra.\n\u2019 In our opinion there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial judge\u2019s conclusion that defendant wilfullybreached the terms and conditions of his probation. Defendant\u2019s testimony in his own behalf reveals as much. This assignment of error is overruled.\n. In our opinion the order entered by the trial judge revoking probation was correct and was supported by the evidence.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BEOCK, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney \u2022, General MattJiis, for the State.'", "Williamson & Shoffner, by Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., for the defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS EARL BLOUNT\nNo. 743SC713\n(Filed 2 January 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 suspended sentence revoked \u2014 grounds for attack\n' A defendant who consents to the suspension of a sentence upon specified conditions may not attack an order putting the sentence into effect except on the ground that there is no evidence to support a finding of a breach of the conditions of suspension or on the ground that the condition which he has broken is invalid because it is unreasonable or is imposed for an unreasonable length of time.\n2.' Criminal Law \u00a7 143 \u2014 suspended sentence'revoked \u2014 violation of probation conditions \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\ni Evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge\u2019s conclusion that defendant wilfully breached the terms and conditions of his probation where it tended to show that defendant moved away from his aunt\u2019s house where he was supposed to be each night between 11:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. and that defendant paid no monies into court in violation of the condition of his suspension that he pay $15 per week until all costs, restitution, and counsel\u2019s fee were paid.\n\u25a0Appeal by defendant from Rousseau, Judge, 24 June 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Pitt County. Argued before the Court of Appeals 10 December 1974.\nAt the January 1974 Session of Court held in Pitt County, defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of non-feloniously receiving stolen goods. An active sentence of two years imposed on defendant was suspended, and defendant was placed on probation for five years. Probation was subject to the usual conditions and to certain special conditions: (1) that defendant be in the home of his aunt by 11:30 p.m. each night and remain there until 6:00 a.m.; and (2) that defendant pay $15J)0 each week to the office of the Clerk of Superior Court until all costs, restitution, and counsel\u2019s fee were paid.\nOn 20 May 1974 Ray E. Joyner, the State Probation Officer, filed a report with the court containing allegations that defendant had violated the two special conditions set forth above.\n. : At a subsequent hearing on 24 June 1974, Joyner testified that defendant had failed and refused to remain in the home of his aunt and furthermore had failed to pay any monies into court.- Joyner stated that he had visited the home of defendant\u2019s aunt and had been told that defendant no longer lived there. Joyner also checked the court records but found no record of any payment by defendant.\nDefendant Thomas Earl Blount testified that he was working on a construction job in Charlotte and Virginia and. was unable to stay at his aunt\u2019s house. Furthermore, defendant stated that he had been saving his money in order to pay a lump sum into court. Defendant testified that he gave this money t\u00f3 his sister to make the payment for him but that she failed to do so.\nThe trial court made findings of fact and entered an order revoking probation and directing that defendant\u2019s active sentence be put into effect. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney \u2022, General MattJiis, for the State.'\nWilliamson & Shoffner, by Robert L. Shoffner, Jr., for the defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0390-01", "first_page_order": 418, "last_page_order": 420 }