Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1990

State v. Clemmons

State v. Clemmons
Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Decided March 6, 1990 · Cozort, Lewis, Wells
97 N.C. App. 502; 389 S.E.2d 135; 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 157

State v. Clemmons

Concurring Opinion

Judge COZORT

concurring.

At the revocation hearing held on 5 June 1989, the defendant did not contest the alleged violation, nor did he raise the issue of his not having had a preliminary hearing prior to the revocation hearing. I find the defendant’s failure to do either to constitute a waiver of the right to a preliminary hearing, and I vote to affirm on that basis.

Concurring Opinion

Judge Wells

concurring.

At his hearing, defendant admitted his violations of the conditions of his probation. On appeal, he does not contend that he did not violate those conditions nor that his violations should for any reason be excused. His sole contention is that he was denied a preliminary hearing. Under these circumstances, I agree that the failure to give defendant a preliminary hearing has not prejudiced him in any way.

Opinion of the Court

LEWIS, Judge. ,

Defendant assigns as error the fact that the trial court failed to hold a preliminary hearing on defendant’s violation of probation pursuant to G.S. § 15A-1345(c). This statute requires a preliminary hearing within seven working days of an arrest of a probationer unless the probationer waives his right to a hearing. Defendant did not waive his right to a preliminary hearing, and asserts that *504the trial court’s failure to conduct a preliminary hearing violated the statute and his right to due process of law.

Defendant was arrested out-of-state on Thursday, 18 May 1989; his revocation hearing was set for Monday, 5 June 1989. Defendant was held for a period of eleven working days (Monday, 29 May being a holiday) without a preliminary hearing. Although we find that the Court failed to comply with the provisions of G.S. § 15A-1345(c), we hold that the defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of a preliminary hearing. The defendant was arrested in Virginia. This is prima facie evidence of a parole violation. He does not deny that he violated the conditions of his parole. There was no need for a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was probable cause to believe he had violated a condition of his probation.

Defendant received a fair hearing, free of prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Wells and Cozort concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.