Appeals Court reverses decision in sex offender probation case

7-25-2011 North Carolina:

The state's second-highest court has reversed a trial judge's decision to revoke the probation of a Buncombe County man convicted of failing to register as a sex offender.

The N.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Donald O'Neal Floyd made a good-faith effort to comply with the terms of his probation and shouldn't have had a prison sentence activated.

But the ruling this week came too late for Floyd to avoid incarceration on the probation violation. He was released in May after serving 14 months.

Floyd, 38, was required to register as a sex offender following his conviction in 2000 for felonious restraint of a minor, according to the N.C. Sex Offender Registry. He served 20 months for that crime.

Floyd pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender in April 2007. He was sentenced to 15-18 months in prison, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on 36 months of supervised probation.

Conditions of the probation included participation in a sexual abuse treatment program and paying the costs of the program.

Floyd's probation officer filed reports in early 2010 alleging that he had violated the terms of his release by not completing the treatment program.

At a hearing in Asheville in March of that year, the probation officer testified that Floyd had attended 27 of the 30 required classes, but had been barred from finishing the program because he was behind in his payments.

According to the Appeals Court ruling, Floyd had a job when he was sentenced to probation but was later laid off. He then landed work with a plumbing company but had to quit when he was shocked and injured on the job.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Laura Bridges ruled that Floyd had willfully violated the conditions of his probation without a valid excuse. He was sent to prison to serve out his sentence.

Floyd argued in his appeal that he couldn't pay all the sex abuse treatment program fees because he was unemployed, living on food stamps and had tried unsuccessfully to get another job.

The Appeals Court said in its ruling that it agreed his failure to pay was not willful. ..Source.. by Clarke Morrison

Read More of Article...

Article Summary only...