Court Opinion

ID: 9584201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:45:28.044559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:05.771808
License: Public Domain

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 of defendant to make the required payments was willful or without lawful excuse. The judge’s findings of fact should be definite and not mere conclusions. State v. Foust, supra; State v. Caudle, 7 N.C. App. 276, 172 S.E. 2d 231 (rev’d on other grounds, 276 N.C. 550, 173 S.E. 2d 778); State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 103 S.E. 2d 376 (1958).
Vacated and remanded.
Judge Vaughn concurs.
Judge Brock concurs in the result.