Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1970-12-16
Citations: 10 N.C. App. 185
Docket Number: No. 704SC619
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH
Judges: Judges Brock and Morris concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN MICHAEL BUSH
No. 704SC619
(Filed 16 December 1970)
1. Criminal Law §§ 91, 145.1— probation revocation hearing — denial of continuance
No abuse of discretion has been shown in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a continuance of his probation revocation hearing.
2. Criminal Law § 145.1— revocation of probation — sufficiency of evidence
There was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the trial court that defendant had violated the conditions of his probation in each of two separate cases.
Appeal by defendant from Copeland, Special Superior Court Judge, 20 May 1970 Session, Onslow Superior Court.
This is an appeal from judgments revoking probation. During the course of defendant’s trial in another case, he was duly informed in writing of his probation officer’s intention to ask the court to revoke probation in two separate cases. The hearing was scheduled the day following the end of the trial then in progress. After hearing the evidence, the presiding judge, in detailed findings of fact, found that defendant had violated the conditions of his probation. Defendant appealed.
Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Thomas B. Wood for the State.
Jerry Paul for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
VAUGHN, Judge.
Defendant's assignment of error based on the trial judge's denial of his motion for a continuance is overruled. The motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and no abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 154 S.E. 2d 476.
The defendant's remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and found to be without merit. There was sufficient evidence to sustain the findings of the trial judge that the defendant had violated the conditions of his probation in each case.
Affirmed.
Judges Brock and Morris concur.