{
  "id": 8526938,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS COLEMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coleman",
  "decision_date": "1983-10-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8227SC1077",
  "first_page": "384",
  "last_page": "385",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. App. 384"
    }
  ],
  "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": "228 S.E. 2d 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564033,
        8563942,
        8564007,
        8563980,
        8563959
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0665-05",
        "/nc/290/0665-01",
        "/nc/290/0665-04",
        "/nc/290/0665-03",
        "/nc/290/0665-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 170",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "172"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556675
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "576"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/29/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E. 2d 300",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "302"
        },
        {
          "page": "302"
        },
        {
          "page": "302"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551700
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "548"
        },
        {
          "page": "548"
        },
        {
          "page": "548-49"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "57"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566904
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "245"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0241-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793020365279984
    },
    "sha256": "c528f5e581e398f89718a602f63f08bec4f81c6db418420ca5d058eda20de4fc",
    "simhash": "1:5ba337e684be0748",
    "word_count": 663
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:03:16.623003+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge VAUGHN and Judge PHILLIPS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS COLEMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that because the North Carolina probation officer testified entirely on the basis of a report prepared by a Maryland probation officer, he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness against him. He also contends the Maryland report was inadmissible hearsay.\nIn a probation revocation hearing the court is not bound by strict rules of evidence. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245, 154 S.E. 2d 53, 57 (1967); State v. Baines, 40 N.C. App. 545, 548, 253 S.E. 2d 300, 302 (1979); State v. Green, 29 N.C. App. 574, 576, 225 S.E. 2d 170, 172, disc. review denied, 290 N.C. 665, 228 S.E. 2d 455 (1976). If both competent and incompetent evidence is admitted, \u201cit is presumed that the trial court ignores the incompetent evidence and considers only that which is competent [,] and that the findings of fact of the court are in no way influenced by hearing the incompetent evidence.\u201d State v. Baines, 40 N.C. App. 545, 548, 253 S.E. 2d 300, 302 (1979). Thus, if competent evidence was before the court \u201cwhich was reasonably sufficient to satisfy it in the exercise of sound judicial discretion that the defendant had, without lawful excuse, wilfully violated one of the valid conditions of his probation,\u201d the order and judgment must be affirmed. Baines, supra, 40 N.C. App. at 548-49, 253 S.E. 2d at 302.\nOne of the conditions of probation was that defendant support his family. The North Carolina probation officer testified that defendant told her he had been incarcerated for nonsupport. This was competent evidence that defendant had violated a condition of his probation. Unless other error appears, then, the order and judgment must be affirmed.\nDefendant further contends that because he was under the supervision of the State of Maryland, his revocation hearing should have been held in that state; and that failure to hold the hearing there violated the interstate compact agreement. While the governing statute authorizes the receiving state to hold a revocation hearing which has the \u201csame standing and effect\u201d as if held in this state, G.S. 148-65.1A(d), it does not mandate a hearing in that state. Further, it provides that the sending state \u201cmay at all times enter a receiving state and . . . retake any person on probation.\u201d G.S. 148-65.1(3) (emphasis supplied). The phrase \u201cat all times\u201d clearly implies a right of the sending state to retake the probationer prior to a revocation hearing in the receiving state, and to hold the hearing in the sending state. This contention is thus without merit.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge VAUGHN and Judge PHILLIPS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.",
      "Rebecca K. Killian, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORRIS COLEMAN\nNo. 8227SC1077\n(Filed 4 October 1983)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 143.5\u2014 revocation of probation \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a probation revocation hearing where one of the conditions of probation was that defendant support his family, and where a North Carolina probation officer testified that defendant told her he had been incarcerated for nonsupport, this was competent evidence that defendant had violated a condition of his probation.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 143.3\u2014 probation revocation \u2014supervision of defendant in Maryland \u2014revocation hearing in North Carolina\nAlthough defendant was under the supervision of the State of Maryland, it was proper for his revocation hearing to have been held in North Carolina pursuant to G.S. 148-65.1A(d) and G.S. 148-65.1(3).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Owens, Judge. Judgment entered 7 June 1982 in Superior Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 August 1983.\nDefendant pled guilty to breaking or entering and larceny, and was placed on probation. He subsequently moved to Maryland, and his probation was transferred to that state. He now appeals from an order and judgment and commitment finding a violation of the terms and conditions of his probation, revoking the suspension of his sentence, and ordering his imprisonment.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.\nRebecca K. Killian, Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0384-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 417
}