{ "id": 8550353, "name": "STATE v. WAYNE LAMARR YOUNG", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Young", "decision_date": "1970-02-25", "docket_number": "No. 7022SC51", "first_page": "393", "last_page": "395", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "7 N.C. App. 393" } ], "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", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0241-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 256, "char_count": 4266, "ocr_confidence": 0.608, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20589385713221117 }, "sha256": "07663663b25121df417c8e8138e47cce84146ccef05f4001d19ef50375939d2a", "simhash": "1:678fb2161ba20829", "word_count": 686 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Mallakd, C.J., and Moheis, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. WAYNE LAMARR YOUNG" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Vaughn, J.\nThere are no exceptions in this record. The Court ordinarily will not consider questions not properly presented by objections duly made and exceptions duly entered. Exceptions which appear nowhere in the record except under the purported assignment of error will not be considered. Nevertheless, the appeal itself will be considered as an exception to the judgment presenting the face of the record for review. 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 24, p. 146.\nWe have carefully reviewed the record and duly considered the brief filed by defendant\u2019s court-appointed attorney. In this State a convicted defendant, released on probation, is entitled to notice and a hearing on the issue of whether he has broken the conditions of probation, before the probation can be revoked. The record discloses that the defendant was duly served with notice as provided by G.S. 15-200.1 Each of Judge Seay\u2019s orders revoking probation recited: \u201cTHIS CAUSE coming on to be heard, and being heard . . . the defendant being in court in person, and being represented by counsel, . . .\u201d The judge had before him a verified report of the probation officer stating in detail alleged violations of the conditions of probation by defendant. The report was competent evidence. State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 154 S.E. 2d 53. The detailed findings of fact by the trial judge clearly support the judgment entered. We hold, therefore, that no error appears on the face of the record before us.\nAffirmed.\nMallakd, C.J., and Moheis, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Vaughn, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney L. Philip Covington for the State.", "Walser, Brinkley, Walser and McGirt by Charles H. McGirt for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. WAYNE LAMARR YOUNG\nNo. 7022SC51\n(Filed 25 February 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 appeal \u2014 sufficiency of objections and exceptions\nTbe Court of Appeals ordinarily will not consider questions not properly presented by objections duly made and exceptions duly entered.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 appeal \u2014 sufficiency of exceptions \u2014 review of face of the record\nExceptions which appear nowhere in the record except under the purported assignment of error will not be considered; nevertheless, the appeal itself will be considered as an exception to the judgment presenting the face of the record for review.\nS. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 revocation of probation \u2014 notice and hearing\nA convicted defendant released on probation is entitled to notice and a hearing on the issue of whether he has broken the conditions of probation before the probation can be revoked. G.S. 15-200.1.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 143\u2014 revocation of probation \u2014 probation report \u2014 admissibility\nIn a hearing to revoke defendant\u2019s probation, the verified report of the probation officer stating in detail defendant\u2019s alleged violations of the conditions of probation is competent evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Seay, J., 18 August 1969 Mixed Session Davidson Superior Court.\nTwo criminal cases against the defendant were consolidated for hearing. Both were appeals from orders revoking probation and effecting sentences of imprisonment. One was a 12-month sentence previously imposed in the Davidson County Court upon his plea of guilty to two counts of issuing worthless checks. The other was a 6-month sentence as a result of his plea of guilty to malicious damage to real property. The defendant appeared in person and was represented by counsel.\nThe record does not contain a transcript of the proceedings but recites that the court considered the probation officer\u2019s report stating the grounds upon which probation was prayed to be revoked and that the court questioned the defendant. The probation officer\u2019s report was verified. The trial judge made detailed findings of fact as to the manner in which defendant had violated the terms of his probation by failing to work at suitable employment, failing to remain within a specified area and violating the penal laws of the State.\nAn active sentence was put into effect in each case. Defendant later gave notice of appeal in the form of an undated written note. On 25 September 1969, May, J., presiding over the Superior Court of Davidson County, made entries of appeal for defendant and appointed counsel to perfect his appeal to this Court.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney L. Philip Covington for the State.\nWalser, Brinkley, Walser and McGirt by Charles H. McGirt for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0393-01", "first_page_order": 415, "last_page_order": 417 }