Lori Ann Duncan appeals the revocation of her probation by the Sullivan County Criminal Court, which ordered her to serve her sentence in the Department of Correction. Duncan argues that the court abused its discretion in this decision. The court, however, affirmed the lower court's judgment.
Duncan had pleaded guilty to burglary, attempted burglary, and possession of drug paraphernalia, resulting in a sentence of one year and six months of intensive probation. A violation warrant was issued alleging several noncompliance issues: failure to attend GED and drug and alcohol programs, failure to undergo evaluations, failure to perform community service, and curfew violations.
During the hearing, probation officer Kathy Moody testified about Duncan's noncompliance, stating that Duncan frequently violated curfew despite warnings and failed to provide proof for her claims of being at work during those times. Duncan also cited conflicts with her stepfather as a reason for her absences but did not communicate this to Moody.
Moody noted that Duncan did not complete the required community service hours, citing transportation issues, and missed two appointments for a drug and alcohol evaluation without explanation. Brandon Harold, responsible for monitoring Duncan's attendance in classes, confirmed her sporadic participation, which ceased altogether shortly before the warrant was issued. Despite being warned about potential probation violations, Duncan’s attendance did not improve.
At the violation hearing, Duncan acknowledged the factual allegations but provided justifications for her noncompliance, particularly her claim of being at work during curfew hours.
The defendant failed to attend mandated alcohol and drug classes and GED classes due to work commitments, claiming Ms. Moody had advised her not to worry about curfew if she was working. However, she acknowledged Ms. Moody's requirement for documentation of her employment, which she did not provide. The defendant also cited transportation issues for not completing community service and missed an alcohol and drug evaluation appointment due to confusion over the location. Although she had some transportation assistance for work, her access to a car was inconsistent. The trial court found her in violation of probation and ordered incarceration, which the defendant appealed. The standard for reviewing probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion, which requires no substantial evidence supporting the violation conclusion. The court needs only a preponderance of evidence for a violation finding. The defendant admitted to the violations during the hearing and did not contest the findings on appeal, providing substantial evidence for the trial court's decision. Despite a sympathetic presentation of her case, the court noted her lack of effort in meeting probation requirements. After careful consideration, the appellate court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering her to serve the original sentence, affirming the lower court's judgment.
