Opinion
No. COA12–155.
2012-07-17
STATE of North Carolina v. Alvin James RAY.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Parker, for the State. Peter Wood, for defendant appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 3 November 2011 by Judge Alan Z. Thornburg in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 July 2012. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Parker, for the State. Peter Wood, for defendant appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Alvin James Ray, Jr. (“defendant”) appeals from judgments entered upon revocation of his probation. We affirm.
On 3 February 2011, defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit felony larceny, organized retail theft, and three counts of felonious larceny. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the cases were consolidated into three judgments and defendant received three consecutive sentences of ten to twelve months each, with the sentences suspended in favor of a supervised probationary period of forty-eight months.
Probation violation reports were filed on 8 June 2011 alleging numerous violations of the terms and conditions of defendant's probation in each of his three cases. The probation revocation hearing was held on 3 November 2011. The trial court determined that defendant willfully and without lawful excuse violated the terms of his probation and entered judgments revoking probation and activating defendant's sentences. Defendant timely appealed.
Defendant's counsel has filed a brief on defendant's behalf in which he states that “after repeated and close examination of the [r]ecord and relevant law,” he “is unable to identify an issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.” He seeks to have this Court “conduct a full examination of the [r]ecord on [a]ppeal for possible prejudicial error and to determine whether any justiciable issue has been overlooked by counsel.” In accordance with the holdings of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), counsel sent defendant a letter on 17 January 2012 advising defendant of counsel's inability to find issues to raise on appeal, of counsel's request for this Court to conduct an independent review of the record, and of defendant's right to file his own arguments directly with this Court. Counsel also sent a copy of the record, the transcript, and the brief filed by counsel to defendant. Defendant has not filed his own written arguments.
In accordance with Anders and Kinch, we have carefully reviewed the transcript and entire record to determine whether any issues of arguable merit appear therefrom. After close examination, however, we are unable to find any possible prejudicial error in the judgments revoking defendant's probation and activating his sentences. Defendant was both present at his probation revocation hearing and represented by counsel, and defendant and his counsel were prepared to meet each of the allegations contained in the probation violation reports. At the hearing, defendant's probation officer testified extensively as to defendant's failure to complete any community service, to obtain employment, to maintain his curfew, and to make any payments toward his court indebtedness. Defendant's probation officer further testified that defendant absconded his probation and had communicated with a codefendant, all of which constituted violations of his probation. Defendant himself admitted at the hearing that he had violated the terms of his probation by missing curfew, leaving the jurisdiction without permission from his probation officer, and failing to obtain employment until after the probation violation reports had been filed. “The breach of any single valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended will support an order activating the sentence.” State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337, 196 S.E.2d 185, 188 (1973). Although defendant attempted to explain away his violations, he failed to show any lack of willfulness or lawful excuse for violating each and every condition found by the trial court. Given the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendant's probation and activating his three sentences. State v. Harris, 361 N.C. 400, 404, 646 S.E.2d 526, 529 (2007). The trial court's judgments are therefore affirmed.
Affirmed. Judges HUNTER (ROBERT C.) and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).