{
  "id": 8550569,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 758SC752",
  "first_page": "504",
  "last_page": "505",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 504"
    }
  ],
  "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",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606268
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0602-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559735
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3458,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2875797005925828
    },
    "sha256": "8431d8f6525caf145d78fc73530d32b3510454eec5d31cae9ff975a36340aa5b",
    "simhash": "1:71d1e5b4877334e4",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in finding that he violated his probation. We agree. The conditions found to be violated are (1) that defendant violate no penal laws and be of good general behavior, and (2) that defendant work faithfully at suitable gainful employment. These two conclusions are supported by findings that defendant was a disciplinary problem in school and that he did not attend school in lieu of working.\nThere is no condition in defendant\u2019s probation requiring that he attend school, and there is no evidence in the record that defendant did not work. Moreover, the finding that defendant was unruly and misbehaved in school does not constitute a violation of his condition to violate no penal laws and to be of general good behavior. Conduct amounting to a breach of the \u201cgood behavior\u201d condition must be such as would constitute a violation of the criminal law of the State. State v. Seagraves, 266 N.C. 112, 145 S.E. 2d 327 (1965) ; State v. Millner, 240 N.C. 602, 83 S.E. 2d 546 (1954).\nThe findings of the trial court do not constitute grounds for revocation of the probation. The order is vacated.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.",
      "Herbert B. Hulse and George F. Taylor for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MICHAEL ANTHONY MILLER\nNo. 758SC752\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 145.1 \u2014 probation conditions \u2014 breach no laws, gainful employment \u2014 'insufficiency of findings for revocation\nFindings that defendant was unruly and misbehaved in school and that he did not attend school in lieu of working were insufficient to support revocation of his probation for breach of probation conditions (1) that defendant violate no penal laws and be of good general behavior, and (2) that defendant work faithfully at suitable gainful employment.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, Judge. Judgment entered 25 April 1975 in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 January 1976.\nOn 13 November 1974, defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor larceny and received a suspended sentence and probation. At a later revocation hearing an order was entered, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201cThe Court finds as a fact that the defendant has wilfully and without lawful excuse violated the conditions of the probation judgment as hereinafter set out:\n(A) The Court finds as a fact that the defendant was unruly in school, threatened the school teachers, refused to attend classes, interfered with the discipline of other students; and, on February 11, 1975, was suspended from school which is in violation of the condition of probation that he shall \u2018violate no penal law of any state or the Federal Government and be of general good behavior.\u2019 The Court further finds that the defendant did not work and did not attend school in lieu of working which is in violation of the condition of probation that he shall \u2018work faithfully at suitable, gainful employment as far as possible and save his earnings above his reasonably necessary expenses.\u2019\nIt Is Therefore Ordered in the discretion of the Court that the probation be Revoked and the sentence to the Wayne County Jail as a Committed Youthful Offender for a period of Six (6) months, heretofore suspended, is hereby ordered into immediate effect and commitment shall be issued by the Clerk of the Court.\u201d\nDefendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.\nHerbert B. Hulse and George F. Taylor for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0504-01",
  "first_page_order": 532,
  "last_page_order": 533
}