{
  "id": 8549842,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT HOGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carolina v. Hogan",
  "decision_date": "1975-09-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7520SC345",
  "first_page": "34",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 34"
    }
  ],
  "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,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "531"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553887
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "192"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0189-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3470,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20588381793687585
    },
    "sha256": "45d8ffd9aef65be6abf1f70a1ebd257927f030e26c952dc190437ef423887205",
    "simhash": "1:3165080f9fa6090f",
    "word_count": 543
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT HOGAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nWe overrule defendant\u2019s contention that there was insufficient evidence that he failed to comply with the conditions of probation because the probation judgment was never admitted into evidence. The court made specific findings as to what conditions had been violated, and there was sufficient evidence to support these findings.\nThe probationary judgment does not have to be formally introduced into evidence at the revocation hearing if the record indicates, as in the case at bar, that the judge has the order before him, and where reference is made in the judgment to specific conditions that defendant allegedly violated. See State v. Langley, 3 N.C. App. 189, 192, 164 S.E. 2d 529, 531 (1968).\nWe cannot agree with defendant\u2019s argument that probation for two years and 355 days plus twelve months of active sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. It is obvious from the record that defendant only complied with his probationary sentence for one month, not two years and 355 days. Moreover, the period of probation (three years) and the active sentence are all within statutory limits. G.S. 15-200.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment that it was error for the court to limit his evidence as to defendant\u2019s having rehabilitated himself, is without merit, as are his remaining assignments of error which we have carefully considered.\nThe findings of Judge Chess support the conclusion that defendant wilfully and without lawful excuse violated the conditions of his probation. The judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen, for the State.",
      "Pittman, Pittman and Pittman, by Donald M. Dawkins, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT HOGAN\nNo. 7520SC345\n(Filed 3 September 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 probation revocation hearing \u2014 probation judg- . ment \u2014 necessity for introduction\nThe probationary judgment does not have to be formally introduced into evidence at the revocation hearing if the record indicates, . as in this case, that the judge has the order before him, and- where reference is made in the judgment to specific conditions that defendant allegedly violated.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36; Criminal Law \u00a7 142\u2014 three year probation \u2014 one year active sentence \u2014 no cruel and unusual punishment\nProbation for two years and 355 days plus twelve months of active sentence upon revocation of defendant\u2019s probation was not cruel and unusual punishment and was within the statutory limits. G.S. 15-200.\nAppeal by defendant from Chess, Judge. Judgment entered 27 February 1975 in Superior Court, Richmond County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 August 1975.\nIn March 1972 defendant was convicted and received a suspended sentence and probation. At the revocation hearing in February 1975 defendant\u2019s probation officer testified as hereafter set out that defendant had violated certain conditions of probation. Defendant stipulated that the allegations contained in the officer\u2019s testimony were correct.\nOne month after being placed on probation defendant, without permission, moved to an unknown address. He was not seen by his probation officer until six weeks before the hearing when he was arrested on another charge. No payment had been made to reimburse the state for defendant\u2019s attorney fee or for the cost of the action. The judge revoked the suspended sentence and from judgment imposing an active sentence defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen, for the State.\nPittman, Pittman and Pittman, by Donald M. Dawkins, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0034-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 64
}