State v. Henderson, 22 N.C. App. 194 (1974)

June 19, 1974 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 7419SC382
22 N.C. App. 194
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RACHEL BURINE HENDERSON

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RACHEL BURINE HENDERSON

No. 7419SC382

(Filed 19 June 1974)

Appeal by defendant from Seay, Judge, 29 October 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County.

Rachel Burine Henderson, the defendant, was convicted of driving under the influence on 10 November 1972, and received a sentence of six months. This sentence was suspended and the defendant was placed on probation for a period of three years. On 16 July 1973 a bill of particulars alleging violations of the terms and conditions of the probation judgment was duly served on the defendant. At the subsequent hearing on this matter, the State offered the testimony of Mrs. Sandra Strader Pugh (probation officer), who testified that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation in the following manner: (1) by being convicted of public drunkenness; (2) by changing her place of residence without the written consent of her probation officer.

From the order of the trial court revoking probation and ordering the sentence into effect, the defendant appealed.

Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Keith L. Jarvis for the State.

Miller, Beck, O’Briant and Glass by F. Stephen Glass for defendant appellant.

HEDRICK, Judge.

Counsel for defendant candidly admits that he is unable to discern any errors of law in the disposition of this case and requests that we review the record. Accordingly, we have carefully reviewed the record and find that the court revoking de*195fendant’s probation was duly organized; that the defendant was afforded proper notice and hearing and the defendant was represented by counsel at this hearing; that the facts found support the court’s conclusion that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of her probation; that the order entered revoking her probation and activating the sentence imposed in this judgment is in proper form; and the sentence imposed in the judgment is within the limits prescribed in the statute for the offense charged. The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Carson concur.