State v. Medlin ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCSC-25
No. 246PA21
Filed 11 March 2022
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JAMES GREGORY MEDLIN
On writ of certiorari pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-32(b) to review a divided
decision of the Court of Appeals, 278 N.C. App. 345, 2021-NCCOA-313, holding no
error in a judgment entered on 17 September 2019 by Judge Anna M. Wagoner in
Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 14 February 2022.
Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, by William F. Maddrey, Assistant Attorney
General, for the State-appellee.
Sandra Payne Hagood, for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
¶1 North Carolina General Statutes Section 15A-1343(a) reads, in its entirety, as
follows:
In General. — The court may impose conditions of
probation reasonably necessary to insure that the
defendant will lead a law-abiding life or to assist him to do
so.
N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(a) (2021).
¶2 A challenged condition of probation imposed by a trial court is valid when it is
STATE V. MEDLIN
2022-NCSC-25
Opinion of the Court
reasonably related to a defendant’s offense and reasonably related to his
rehabilitation. State v. Cooper, 304 N.C. 180, 184 (1981). In the absence of proof to
the contrary, it is presumed that a trial court acted with proper discretion with
respect to a condition of probation imposed by the trial court. State v. Smith, 233 N.C.
68, 70 (1950). Further, the Court looks with favor upon the observation of the Court
of Appeals that “[t]he [trial] court has substantial discretion in devising conditions
under th[e] [probation statute].” State v. Harrington, 78 N.C. App. 39, 48 (1985).
¶3 In the present case, the trial court properly exercised its substantial discretion
in devising and imposing special conditions of probation that were sufficiently
reasonable in their relationship to defendant’s rehabilitation. Consequently, without
proof to the contrary, there was no abuse of the discretion properly exercised here by
the trial court in its specification of defendant’s special conditions of probation. In
determining a defendant’s special conditions of probation and assuring their
compatibility with one another as well as with the general conditions of probation, a
trial court must exercise caution and vigilance to avoid inadvertent conflicts between
and among the probationary conditions which are tailored for a defendant’s
rehabilitation pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343.
AFFIRMED.