More about What Is and Isn't Absconding

Two new cases from the court of appeals, both involving defendants named Johnson, shed more light on the meaning of “absconding” from probation. First, recall the basic Justice Reinvestment rule for probation violations: felony probation may be revoked only for a new criminal offense or absconding, or for any violation after a defendant has served two periods of confinement in response to violation. G.S. 15A-1344(d2). Absconding is defined by statute as willfully avoiding supervision or willfully making one’s whereabouts unknown to the supervising officer. G.S. 15A-1343(b)(3a). Second, recall the recent case of State v. Williams, __ N.C. App. __, 776 S.E.2d 741 (2015), discussed here. In Williams, the court of appeals reversed a probation revocation, concluding that the probationer’s behavior did not constitute absconding within the meaning of G.S. 15A-1343(b)(3a). In that case, a Vance County probationer changed his address without permission, missed multiple appointments with his probation officer, and traveled back and forth to New Jersey several times. The behavior was not absconding, though, because it was covered under other technical violations—failing to remain within the jurisdiction under G.S. 15A-1343(b)(2), and failing to report the probation officer as directed under G.S. 15A-1343(b)(3). Without more, mere technical violations could not be framed as violations of the special, revocation-eligible absconding condition. In both of this week’s Johnson cases, the defendants tried to leverage Williams to defend against allegations of absconding. One defendant succeeded, the other did not. In State v. Jakeco Johnson, the defendant was on felony probation. About a month into his [...]