In-Chambers Modifications and Extensions of Probation

Not all changes to a person’s probation happen after a hearing. Many changes are made in chambers (or some other location other than the courtroom), with the consent of the parties. Though it happens all the time, the General Statutes don’t really say much about it. Today’s post covers some of the issues that can arise. A typical fact pattern: a probationer is behind on the payment of his monetary obligations and needs more time to pay. The probation officer asks the probationer if he will consent to an extension of probation. If he will, the officer prepares a motion to modify—form AOC-CR-609 in a regular probation case, or AOC-CR-622 in a deferral or conditional discharge case. It will be styled as a “motion to modify the defendant’s probation without charge of violation.” If the probationer and prosecutor will sign it, the officer will proceed to get it signed by a judge, with the judge indicating that he or she has, “upon consent of the State and the defendant,” found “good cause” to modify the original judgment suspending sentence. The order is entered, probation is extended, and that’s that. The same process applies to other consensual modifications, like the removal of electronic house arrest equipment, or a requirement to attend treatment. There’s nothing wrong with modifying probation without first finding a violation; G.S. 15A-1344(d) specifically says that probation may be modified or extended “for good cause shown.” The statute also says, however, that such modifications and extensions may be done after [...]