Legal Opinion

State v. Neal

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 26, 1972No. 7227SC236PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

In this case, as in State v. Foust, 13 N.C. App. 382, 185 S.E. 2d 718 (1972), and State v. Huntley, 14 N.C. App. 236, 188 S.E. 2d 30 (1972) (filed at the same time as this opinion), the trial court’s findings of fact are not sufficient to support his conclusion that the defendant’s failure to make the payments set out in the probation judgment was willful or without lawful excuse.

*240The judgment activating the suspended sentence is vacated and the proceeding is remanded for further hearing in order that the judge may determine, by appropriate findings of fact, whether the failure…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  2. State v. CaudleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. FoustCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  4. State v. CaudleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  5. State v. HuntleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. YoungCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  2. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  3. State v. NealCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API