State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 06 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 25,25 |
| Citation | 282 S.E.2d 436,304 N.C. 180 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Edward COOPER. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by David Roy Blackwell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
Bailey, Raynor & Erwin by Edward G. Bailey, Jacksonville, for defendant-appellee.
Was the condition in the probation judgment that defendant not operate a motor vehicle on the streets or highways of North Carolina from 12:01 a. m. until 5:30 a. m. during the period of probation a valid condition? Answer to this question disposes of this appeal.
G.S. 15A-1343 provides in pertinent part:
(b) Appropriate conditions. When placing a defendant on probation, the court may, as a condition of the probation, require that during the period of probation the defendant comply with one or more of the following conditions:
(17) Satisfy any other conditions reasonably related to his rehabilitation.
G.S. 15A-1342(g) reads as follows:
Invalid conditions; timing of objection. A court may not revoke probation for violation of an invalid condition. The failure of a defendant to object to a condition of probation at the time it is imposed does not constitute a waiver of the right to object at a later time to the condition.
Defendant challenges the validity of the condition that he not operate a motor vehicle on the streets or highways of North Carolina from 12:01 a. m. until 5:30 a. m. during the period of probation on the grounds that (1) it bears no reasonable relationship to the offenses he had committed, (2) it was not reasonably related to his rehabilitation, and (3) the three-year period of probation is unreasonably lengthy. He contends, therefore, that the challenged condition is invalid and Judge Stevens had no authority to revoke his probation for violation of an invalid condition. The Court of Appeals so held.
We find no merit in defendant's position and therefore reverse the Court of Appeals. The record shows that defendant pled guilty to fourteen crimes involving the possession of stolen credit cards. The use of a motor vehicle at other than normal business hours, particularly late at night, is reasonably related to the reception, possession and disposition of stolen property. Limiting defendant's use of a motor vehicle after midnight imposes a legitimate restriction on his travels and tends to minimize his opportunity for contact with persons engaged in criminal activities. Thus the challenged condition bears a reasonable relationship to the offenses committed by defendant, tends to reduce his exposure to crime and to assist in his rehabilitation. Moreover, three years on probation is very reasonable indeed for fourteen felonies.
It is appropriate to note at this point that defendant did not raise this issue at the revocation hearing, offered no evidence challenging the validity of any condition of probation, interposed no objection and took no exception to the action of the court. The record contains no showing that defendant did not use a motor vehicle in the commission of the crimes to which he pled guilty. The record contains no evidence that the crimes were not committed in the nighttime and that a motor vehicle was not used in the commission of them. In fact, the record contains nothing to indicate that the challenged condition of probation is invalid. At the revocation hearing, defendant contended only that he was not the driver of the vehicle. The first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oakley, 99-3328-CR.
...of imprisonment or some other greater restriction" upon the defendant's rights of movement, association, and speech); State v. Cooper, 282 S.E.2d 436, 439 (N.C. 1981) (ruling that probation condition prohibiting defendant from operating a motor vehicle on the public streets and highways bet......
-
Murry v. Commonwealth
...defendant, tend to reduce the defendant's exposure to crime, and assist in the defendant's rehabilitation) (citing State v. Cooper, 304 N.C. 180, 282 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1981)); Jones v. State, 41 P.3d 1247, 1258 (Wyo.2002) (holding that “probation conditions must be reasonably related to reha......
-
State v. Allah
...a condition of probation unless he raises the issue no later than the hearing at which his probation is revoked,” State v. Cooper, 304 N.C. 180, 183, 282 S.E.2d 436, 439 (1981), and since Defendant has challenged the validity of the condition of probation at issue here prior to any attempt ......
-
State v. Pavkovic, COA 19-126
...the condition assists in the defendant's rehabilitation." Allah , 231 N.C. App. at 98, 750 S.E.2d at 911 (citing State v. Cooper , 304 N.C. 180, 183, 282 S.E.2d 436, 438 (1981) ).Here, the condition that defendant not come within 1500 feet of the abortion clinic is reasonably related to the......