{
  "id": 8553834,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFF DEMENT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dement",
  "decision_date": "1979-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 799SC297",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "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": "154 S.E. 2d 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566904
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 108",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565348
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0544-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3526,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3342555878740421
    },
    "sha256": "a1935446de991dcbd6c003a418598199f3a8cdb2994fd48913cbdd40ec0f84d4",
    "simhash": "1:18f2442db056beff",
    "word_count": 574
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:09.609845+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFF DEMENT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Judge.\nThe defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in requiring his counsel to represent him in the probation revocation hearing only two hours after the appointment of counsel by the court. Neither the defendant nor his attorney requested that the court grant additional time to prepare a defense. Nothing in the record suggests that the defendant\u2019s attorney did not have ample time to prepare any defense the defendant may have had. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled. See State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E. 2d 108 (1967).\nThe defendant next assigns as error the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court and contends that they were not supported by the evidence. Sufficient evidence was presented in the verified and uncontradicted violation report served upon the defendant to support the trial court\u2019s findings and conclusions. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53 (1967). Additionally, the uncontradicted testimony of the defendant\u2019s probation officer was sufficient to support the findings and conclusions. This assignment of error is overruled.\nThe judgment of the trial court is free from reversible error and is\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and WEBB concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Marilyn R. Rich, for the State.",
      "Conrad B. Sturges, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFF DEMENT\nNo. 799SC297\n(Filed 3 July 1979)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 44\u2014 counsel appointed two hours before hearing \u2014 time to prepare\nDefendant was not prejudiced where the trial court required his counsel to represent him in a probation revocation hearing only two hours after the appointment of counsel by the court.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 143.9, 143.10\u2014 violation of probation conditions \u2014 employment \u2014court costs\nEvidence was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings and conclusions that defendant violated the conditions of his probation by failing to pay court costs and by failing to remain gainfully employed.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Smith (David I.), Judge. Judgment entered 5 December 1978 in Superior Court, FRANKLIN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 June 1979.\nThe defendant entered a plea of guilty to misdemeanor larceny on 4 May 1978 and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years. This sentence was suspended upon the conditions, among others, that the defendant remain gainfully employed or in full-time school status and pay court costs including $5 per day for time served in the Franklin County Jail. A violation report was filed against the defendant on 29 November 1978 and received by him on 30 November 1978. It was alleged in that report that the defendant had not made any payments toward the court costs and had been fired from his job for repeatedly failing to appear for work. The case was called for hearing, and an attorney was appointed to represent the defendant and instructed to be ready for a hearing in two hours. At the hearing, the State presented the defendant\u2019s probation officer who testified that the defendant had not remained employed and had not made any payments toward court costs. The defendant presented no evidence. The trial court found that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation by not making the required payments and by failing to remain employed. The trial court then revoked suspension of the sentence previously imposed and sentenced the defendant to imprisonment for a term of two years. The defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Marilyn R. Rich, for the State.\nConrad B. Sturges, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 282,
  "last_page_order": 283
}