In this Wilson County case, defendant appealed the revocation of her probation, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support the finding she committed a new crime on probation and (2) violation of her right to confront the probation officer who filed the violation reports against her. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

Defendant’s probation officer “W” filed two probation violation reports against her from November and December 2021. The reports alleged defendant was committed new crimes while on probation as she was charged with obtaining property by false pretenses and uttering a forged instrument. When the matter came before the trial court in May 2022, probation officer W was replaced by probation officer “H,” who testified regarding the two 2021 reports, as well as a third report from February 2022 that officer H prepared alleging a second uttering a forged instrument offense. Defendant objected to the absence of officer W, as she wished to cross-examine the officer who filed the 2021 reports against her. The trial court noted the objection in the record but otherwise proceeded with the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and activated her prison sentences.  

For (1), defendant argued “the State needed to call law enforcement witnesses to present evidence about the investigations relating to the crimes, civilian victim witnesses, or [bank] employees” to support the alleged crimes committed by defendant. Slip Op. at 10. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the violation reports, arrest warrants, and testimony from Officer H supported the conclusion that defendant was the person on security camera footage committing the crimes. The court explained “[a] probation revocation hearing is not a trial, and the State need not present evidence sufficient to convict Defendant nor call as witnesses the investigating officers of the crimes alleged.” Id. at 12. 

Turning to (2), the court noted that the Sixth Amendment did not apply to a probation revocation hearing, and that G.S. 15A-1345(e) was the basis for confrontation rights in the proceeding. Because G.S. 15A-1345(e) controlled, the issue before the court was “whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by not making an explicit finding that good cause existed for not allowing Defendant to confront [officer W].” Id. at 14. The court referenced State v. Terry, 149 N.C. App. 434 (2002), explaining that failure to require an adverse witness to testify is not error if “(1) the adverse witness’s testimony would have been merely extraneous evidence in light of other competent evidence presented through the probation officer’s testimony and (2) defendant failed to request the professor be subpoenaed.” Slip Op. at 14. Here, the court found the testimony of Officer W would have been extraneous in light of the other evidence in the record supporting defendant’s commission of the crimes. Additionally, defendant did not subpoena Officer W. This led the court to conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the hearing to proceed without Officer W. Finally, the court noted that if any error occurred, it was not prejudicial, as sufficient competent evidence before the trial court supported the revocation of defendant’s probation without the testimony from Officer W. 

The defendant in this case was on supervised probation for a conviction of possession with intent to sell or deliver methamphetamine. The defendant’s probation officer filed a violation report, alleging that the defendant had absconded from supervision and committed several other violations. The defendant waived counsel and testified at the hearing held on the violation; he admitted to absconding and committing the other violations, but also maintained that he had given his current address to his probation officer. The trial court found that the defendant had absconded and committed the other alleged violations, revoked his probation, and activated his sentence. The defendant filed a handwritten notice of appeal.

The appellate court first held that the notice of appeal was defective, but granted discretionary review and addressed the merits. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the state presented insufficient evidence of absconding, because the defendant admitted to it in his testimony and thereby waived the requirement that the state present sufficient evidence of the violation. Citing State v. Sellers, 185 N.C. App. 726 (2007), the court held that “when a defendant admits to willfully violating a condition of his or her probation in court, the State does not need to present evidence to support the violations.” Defendant’s arguments that he did not understand the legal definition of absconding, had provided his probation officer with an address, and that the trial court should have conducted a more thorough examination of his admission, were unavailing given that the defendant “unequivocally and repeatedly admitted that he had absconded.” The court affirmed the revocation based on absconding, but remanded the judgment to correct three clerical errors regarding the name of the underlying offense of conviction, the total number of alleged violations, and an incorrect indication on the judgment form that the other violations besides absconding would also support revocation. The latter was deemed a clerical error because the transcript clearly indicated that the trial court’s revocation order was properly based only on the absconding violation, in accordance with G.S. 15A-1344(d2).

In this Perquimans County case, defendant appealed the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation, arguing the trial court extended his probation after the probationary term had expired without a finding of good cause. The Court of Appeals agreed, vacating the order and remanding to the trial court to determine if good cause exists.  

Defendant, a town council member, was placed on probation for striking another council member in October 2018. After entering an Alford plea to assault of a government official, defendant was sentenced in December 2019 to 60 days of imprisonment, suspended for 24 months supervised probation with 15 days of active term, and a curfew from 7pm to 6am. Defendant’s probation officer filed violation reports alleging that defendant violated the curfew and left the county without prior approval. The matter was initially set for an August 2020 hearing, but after continuances, the matter did not reach a hearing until February of 2022. By that time, defendant’s probationary term had expired, ending in December 2021. After the February 2022 hearing, the trial court entered an order extending defendant’s probation for another 12 months and ordering a 45-day active term as a condition of special probation. Defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals looked first to G.S. 15A-1344(f), which allows a trial court to extend probation after the expiration of the term in certain circumstances. Relevant for this case, a trial court must find that the defendant violated a condition of probation, and then make a finding under (f)(3) that “for good cause shown and stated the probation should be extended.” Slip Op. at 4. The court explained that “A finding of good cause ‘cannot simply be inferred from the record.’” Id., quoting State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609, 617 (2019). Because the hearing here occurred after defendant’s probation term expired, and the record contained no finding of good cause to satisfy G.S. 15A-1344(f)(3), the court remanded for further determination by the trial court. 

The court also vacated the 45-day active term imposed after the expiration of defendant’s probation, finding error by the trial court for two reasons. First, under the calculation required by G.S. 15A-1351(a), “the maximum period of confinement that could have been imposed as a condition of special probation was 15 days,” which defendant had served at the beginning of his sentence. Id. at 6. Second, because the statute sets an outer deadline of “the end of the probationary term or two years after the date of conviction, whichever comes first,” defendant’s additional 45-day active term was outside the acceptable period. Id. at 7. 

The defendant was placed on 18 months of supervised probation following his guilty pleas to possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, fleeing to elude, and RDO. Shortly before his probationary term expired, the defendant’s probation officer filed a violation report alleging that he had committed four new criminal offenses. Approximately a year later, after the defendant prevailed on a motion to suppress evidence in those cases, the new charges were dismissed. Nevertheless, the defendant’s probation was revoked based on the allegations in the violation report, and the defendant appealed. In State v. Geter, 843 S.E.2d 489 (N.C. App. 2020) (unpublished), the appellate court remanded this matter because the revocation judgments failed to identify which of the four new offenses were the basis for the revocation, and also failed to make a finding that good cause existed to revoke the defendant’s probation after the probationary period had expired (by 399 days), as required by G.S. 15A-1344(f). After a rehearing, the trial court found that good cause existed for the revocation because the new charges were not resolved before the probationary period had ended, and the disposition of those charges would have had a direct impact on the violation hearing. The defendant again appealed his revocation, arguing that the trial court’s finding of good cause failed as a matter of law.

The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the revocation. Applying an abuse of discretion of standard, and distinguishing State v. Sasek, 844 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. App. 2020) in which no findings were made nor was there any evidence in the record that good cause existed, the trial court in this case did make findings and they were supported by facts in the record. The appellate court acknowledged that a revocation occurring 399 days after the probationary period had ended was “significant” and “unadvisable in the administration of justice,” but in this case the violation report was not filed until shortly before the end of the probationary period, there was only one session of hearings held each week in the county, and the trial court found that waiting for a disposition on the underlying new charges constituted good cause for the delay. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in so finding, and the revocation order was affirmed.

(1) The defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell or deliver a Schedule II controlled substance and sale of methamphetamine. At trial, the State presented the testimony of an expert in drug chemistry from the North Carolina State Crime Lab. She testified that she performed a gas chromatography mass spectrometer (GCMS) test on the substance. She explained how the GCMS test works and how the examiner analyzes the results. Before she explained how she applied those methods on the sample in this case and the result she obtained, the State interrupted her testimony and asked about recognition of GCMS testing in the scientific community. The witness testified that GCMS was well-respected in the scientific community and confirmed that she had recorded the results of her testing in the lab report. The lab report was then admitted into evidence without objection, and the witness testified without objection that the substance was methamphetamine, Schedule II. The Court of Appeals held that although the witness was prepared to explain how she conducted GCMS testing in this case, she never did so. Further, the lab report stated only that the material that was examined was found to contain methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals found that this evidence failed to satisfy North Carolina Rule of Evidence 702(a)(3), which requires that the witness demonstrate that she applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The Court ruled, however, that the defendant failed to establish plain error because the witness testified that she conducted the GCMS test, obtained positive results, and produced a lab report recording the results. (2) The trial judge revoked the defendant’s probation, imposed for other charges before the offenses in this case, based on violation of the condition that the defendant commit no criminal offense. The defendant argued and the State conceded that the trial judge erred by activating his suspended sentence without making a finding that good cause existed to revoke his probation after the period of probation expired. The defendant argued further that the probation revocation should be vacated, without remand, because the record was devoid of any evidence to show good cause to revoke after the expiration of the defendant’s probation. The Court of Appeals agreed. A violation report was filed May 17, 2017, and a probation hearing was scheduled for June 13, 2017, but a hearing did not take place until March 2019, fourteen months after the defendant’s probation expired. The Court found nothing in the record to show why the probation hearing was not held in June 2017 or at least before expiration of his probation in January 2018. The Court noted that a criminal conviction is not required for the trial judge to revoke probation for a defendant’s commission of a criminal act in violation of probation. A concurring judge would have remanded for further proceedings on whether the State made reasonable efforts to conduct a probation hearing before expiration of the defendant’s probation.

The defendant was on supervised probation in Gaston County after pleading guilty to two counts of uttering a forged instrument. 24 months into a 30-month period of probation, a probation violation was filed, accusing the defendant of willful failure to pay. The defendant was not represented by counsel at the hearing, and the trial court ultimately extended probation by 12 months. A year later, probation filed a violation report accusing the defendant of numerous violations. An absconding violation was filed soon after. A hearing was held where the defendant’s probation was revoked, and his sentence activated.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the initial extension of his probation was invalid based on a violation of his right to counsel. (1) The State argued that the defendant was not permitted to collaterally attack the underlying judgment. The court disagreed, finding that the defendant sought to challenge the order extending his probation, not the underlying criminal judgment placing him on probation. Because the defendant had no right of appeal from that order, he retained the right to challenge it in the present case.

(2) The trial court failed to conduct a colloquy pursuant to G.S. 15A-1242 to ensure the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at the first probation hearing. While the defendant and judge had signed a waiver of counsel form indicating that the defendant waived all counsel, the judge failed to check either box (indicating partial or total waiver of counsel) on the certification section of the form. The certification attests that the G.S. 15A-1242 colloquy with the defendant was completed. This was a substantive error and not a clerical mistake—the trial court only had jurisdiction to revoke probation in the current case if the initial extension was valid, and the initial extension was only valid if the defendant’s right to counsel was honored, so a mistake here spoke directly to the length of the defendant’s probation. While a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of counsel may be presumed from the defendant’s signature on the waiver form, that presumption will not be indulged where other record evidence contradicts that conclusion. According to the court:

[A]lthough a signed written waiver is generally ‘presumptive evidence that a defendant wishes to act as his or her own attorney,’ we conclude that the written waiver in the instant case is insufficient—notwithstanding the presence of both parties’ signatures—to pass constitutional and statutory muster. Guinn Slip op. at 18 (cleaned up).

Further, the transcript revealed that no waiver of counsel colloquy occurred. Even assuming the signed waiver of counsel form was valid, the trial court still has a duty to conduct the colloquy of G.S. 15A-1242 and its failure to do so was prejudicial error. The trial court’s original order extending probation by 12 months was therefore invalid, as those proceedings violated the defendant’s right to counsel. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the later probation violation hearing, and the order of revocation was vacated.

Judge Tyson dissented. He would have found that the signed form conclusively established the defendant’s valid waiver of counsel and would have affirmed the trial court’s revocation order.

The defendant pled guilty to aggravated felony serious injury by vehicle, driving while impaired, and injury to real property. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 29 – 47 months imprisonment and suspended the sentence, placing the defendant on 60 months of supervised probation. The trial court also ordered the defendant to serve 330 days of imprisonment as a condition of special probation.

Defendant began to serve his term of special probation on October 7, 2014, and then served a 26-day term of imprisonment in a separate case. The defendant was released from imprisonment to supervised probation on September 28, 2015. The probation officer filed violation reports on January 23, 2020, February 5, 2020, and February 25, 2020. The trial court determined in a March 10, 2020 hearing that the defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation and activated the defendant’s suspended sentence. The defendant appealed.

The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation. Pursuant to G.S. 15A-1351(a), the defendant’s total probationary period included his 330-day imprisonment as a condition of special probation. The Court reasoned that, at the latest, the defendant’s probationary period began on November 3, 2014, after he served his 26-day sentence in the other case. Thus, the defendant’s 60-month probationary period would have ended, at the latest, on November 3, 2019. Because the violation reports were all filed after that date, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation and activate his suspended sentence.

The defendant was serving an active sentence when he pled guilty to other felony charges. The sentencing court imposed two 20 to 24 month sentences, suspended for 36 months on the condition of supervised probation. In the event the defendant violated probation, the two sentences would be run consecutively to the then-existing sentence. In one of the new sentences, the court indicated the probation would run at the expiration of the defendant’s current sentence. The other new sentence did not. The defendant violated probation and the consecutive terms were imposed. On appeal, the defendant complained that the violation report for one of the cases was filed too late—since only one judgment indicated probation was to begin at the expiration of his existing sentence, probation from the other judgment began running concurrently while the defendant was still incarcerated. The court agreed. Under G.S. 15A-1346, probation runs concurrently to any active sentence if not otherwise specified. Because one of the judgments failed to indicate probation ran consecutive to the defendant’s existing sentence, it was concurrent by default and probation began on the day of that judgment. Here, the violation was filed after that probationary period expired, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation. The judgement of revocation in that case was therefore vacated.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation based on the violations alleged. Here, the defendant did not waive his right to notice of his alleged probation violations and the State failed to allege a revocation-eligible violation. Thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke.

The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation because the State failed to prove that the violation reports were timely filed. As reflected by the file stamps on the violation reports, they were filed after the expiration of probation in all three cases at issue. 

(1) In this case, which came to the court on a certiorari petition to review the trial court’s 2013 probation revocation, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend her probation in 2009. (2) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the defendant’s probation in 2009. The defendant’s original period of probation expired on 27 June 2010. On 18 February 2009, 16 months before the date probation was set to end, the trial court extended the defendant’s probation. Under G.S. 15A-1343.2(d), the trial court lacked statutory authority to order a three-year extension more than six months before the expiration of the original period of probation. Also, the trial court lacked statutory authority under G.S. 15A-1344(d) because the defendant’s extended period of probation exceeded five years. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend probation in 2009, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation in 2013.

The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation when it did so after his probationary period had expired and he was not subject to a tolling period.

(1) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation and activate her suspended sentences where the defendant committed her offenses prior to 1 December 2009 but had her revocation hearing after 1 December 2009 and thus was not covered by either statutory provision—G.S. 15A-1344(d) or 15A-1344(g)—authorizing the tolling of probation periods for pending criminal charges. (2) The trial court erred by revoking her probation in other cases where it based the revocation, in part, on probation violations that were neither admitted by the defendant nor proven by the State at the probation hearing.

(1) The trial court erred by revoking the defendant’s probation where the State failed to present evidence that the violation report was filed before the termination of the defendant’s probation. As a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke. (2) The court declined to consider the defendant’s argument that the trial court had no jurisdiction to revoke his probation in another case because the sentencing court failed to make findings supporting a probation term of more than 30 months. It reasoned that a defendant cannot re-litigate the legality of a condition of probation unless he or she raises the issue no later than the hearing at which his probation is revoked.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation and activate his sentence. Although the trial court revoked on grounds that the defendant had committed a subsequent criminal offense, such a violation was not alleged in the violation report. Thus, the defendant did not receive proper notice of the violation. Because the defendant did not waive notice, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke.

The court lacked jurisdiction to consider an appeal when the defendant failed to timely challenge an order revoking his probation. If a trial judge determines that a defendant has willfully violated probation, activates the defendant’s suspended sentence, and then stays execution of his or her order, a final judgment has been entered, triggering the defendant’s right to seek appellate review of the trial court’s decision. In this case, the defendant appealed well after expiration of the fourteen-day appeal period prescribed in the appellate rules. 

On appeal from a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 795 S.E.2d 598 (2016), the court modified and affirmed the decision below, holding that the defendant received adequate notice of his probation revocation hearing pursuant to G.S. 15A-1345(e). The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation for violating the condition that he commit no criminal offenses, specifically fleeing to allude arrest and no operator’s license. On appeal, the defendant argued that because the probation violation reports did not specifically list the “commit no criminal offense” condition as the condition violated, the statutory notice requirement was not satisfied. The court determined that the issue was one of first impression. The statute requires that the State give the probationer notice of the hearing and its purpose, including a statement of the violations alleged. The words “violation” and “violations” as used in the statute refer to violations of conditions of probation. It follows that the phrase “statement of the violations alleged” refers to a statement of what the probationer did to violate his conditions of probation. It does not require a statement of the underlying conditions that were violated. The court also overruled post-Justice Reinvestment Act cases decided by the Court of Appeals that had created a different notice requirement. Here, the State sought to prove that the defendant had violated the condition that he commit no criminal offense. Thus, the notice needed to contain a statement of the actions the defendant allegedly took that constituted a violation of the probation— that is, a statement of what the defendant actually did that violated a probation condition. The defendant received proper notice when the violation report named the specific offenses that the defendant was alleged to have committed, listing his pending criminal charges. 

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a probation revocation hearing because the defendant was not provided with adequate notice, including a written statement of the violations alleged. The trial court revoked the defendant’s probation after the defendant made multiple repeated objections to probation. The court rejected the State’s argument that the defendant waived her right to statutory notice by voluntarily appearing before the court and participating in the revocation hearing. Because the defendant was not provided with prior statutory notice of the alleged violations, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation. The court went on to note that the trial court is not without recourse to compel a recalcitrant defendant in these circumstances. The violation report could have been filed and an arrest warrant could have been issued to provide the defendant with proper notice. Alternatively, the trial court could have found the defendant in contempt of court. And, regardless of the defendant’s statements and protests, the trial court could have simply ordered the defendant to be accompanied by a law enforcement or probation officer to register and implement probation supervision.

A probation violation report provided the defendant with adequate notice that the State intended to revoke his probation on the basis of a new criminal offense. The report alleged that the defendant violated the condition that he commit no criminal offense in that he had several new pending charges which were specifically identified. The report further stated that “If the defendant is convicted of any of the charges it will be a violation of his current probation.” 

On appeal from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 810 S.E.2d 828 (2018), the court affirmed per curiam, holding that the State failed to carry its burden of presenting sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke the defendant’s probation based upon a finding that the defendant willfully absconded probation. It went on, however, to “disavow the portion of the opinion analyzing the pertinence of the fact that defendant’s probationary term expired prior to the date of the probation violation hearing and holding ‘that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant’s probation after his case expired.’” In the opinion below, the Court of Appeals held that because the State presented insufficient evidence to support a finding of willful absconding, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation after the term of probation ended. When the defendant’s probation officer visited his reported address, an unidentified woman advised the officer that the defendant did not live there. The State presented no evidence regarding the identity of this person or her relationship to the defendant. The officer never attempted to contact the defendant again. However when the defendant contacted the officer following his absconding arrest, the officer met the defendant at the residence in question. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was insufficient to establish absconding. It went on to hold that the trial court’s decision was not only an abuse of discretion but also was an error that deprived the court of jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation after his probationary term expired.

In this Wilson County case, defendant appealed the revocation of her probation, arguing (1) insufficient evidence to support the finding she committed a new crime on probation and (2) violation of her right to confront the probation officer who filed the violation reports against her. The Court of Appeals found no error. 

Defendant’s probation officer “W” filed two probation violation reports against her from November and December 2021. The reports alleged defendant was committed new crimes while on probation as she was charged with obtaining property by false pretenses and uttering a forged instrument. When the matter came before the trial court in May 2022, probation officer W was replaced by probation officer “H,” who testified regarding the two 2021 reports, as well as a third report from February 2022 that officer H prepared alleging a second uttering a forged instrument offense. Defendant objected to the absence of officer W, as she wished to cross-examine the officer who filed the 2021 reports against her. The trial court noted the objection in the record but otherwise proceeded with the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court revoked defendant’s probation and activated her prison sentences.  

For (1), defendant argued “the State needed to call law enforcement witnesses to present evidence about the investigations relating to the crimes, civilian victim witnesses, or [bank] employees” to support the alleged crimes committed by defendant. Slip Op. at 10. The Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the violation reports, arrest warrants, and testimony from Officer H supported the conclusion that defendant was the person on security camera footage committing the crimes. The court explained “[a] probation revocation hearing is not a trial, and the State need not present evidence sufficient to convict Defendant nor call as witnesses the investigating officers of the crimes alleged.” Id. at 12. 

Turning to (2), the court noted that the Sixth Amendment did not apply to a probation revocation hearing, and that G.S. 15A-1345(e) was the basis for confrontation rights in the proceeding. Because G.S. 15A-1345(e) controlled, the issue before the court was “whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by not making an explicit finding that good cause existed for not allowing Defendant to confront [officer W].” Id. at 14. The court referenced State v. Terry, 149 N.C. App. 434 (2002), explaining that failure to require an adverse witness to testify is not error if “(1) the adverse witness’s testimony would have been merely extraneous evidence in light of other competent evidence presented through the probation officer’s testimony and (2) defendant failed to request the professor be subpoenaed.” Slip Op. at 14. Here, the court found the testimony of Officer W would have been extraneous in light of the other evidence in the record supporting defendant’s commission of the crimes. Additionally, defendant did not subpoena Officer W. This led the court to conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the hearing to proceed without Officer W. Finally, the court noted that if any error occurred, it was not prejudicial, as sufficient competent evidence before the trial court supported the revocation of defendant’s probation without the testimony from Officer W. 

The defendant pled guilty to second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The defendant was sentenced to active terms of 176-221 months imprisonment for the second-degree murder charge and 16-20 months imprisonment for the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon charge. The active sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was suspended for 36 months of supervised probation, which commenced in August 2019 after the defendant was released from prison following his active sentence for second-degree murder.

In February 2021, the State filed a violation report alleging that the defendant violated his probation by failing to pay the full monetary judgment entered against him and because he was arrested and charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the defendant committed a crime and revoked the defendant’s probation. The Court of Appeals granted the defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in revoking his probation. The Court of Appeals agreed, reasoning that in order to revoke a defendant’s probation for committing a criminal offense, there must be some form of evidence that a crime was committed. The only evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was the probation officer’s violation report and testimony from the probation officer. The Court concluded that this evidence only established that defendant was arrested for possession of a firearm by a felon and that there was no evidence beyond the fact that defendant was arrested that tended to establish he committed a crime. The Court thus held that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding a crime was committed and revoking defendant’s probation.

The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgments revoking the defendant’s probation and activating his suspended sentences imposed in connection with felonies charged in two CRS case numbers – 17 CRS 86913 and 18 CRS 338 – because discrepancies between the record and the judgements left the basis for revocation in both case numbers unclear.  The Court likened this case to State v. Sitosky, 238 N.C. App. 558 (2014) because in both cases the trial court marked the boxes on the judgments indicating that the defendants had admitted to all violations alleged in the violation reports when in fact the defendants had not done so.  Here, among other inconsistencies, the trial court indicated in its judgments that the defendant had waived his revocation hearing and admitted all alleged violations despite the fact that the record indicated that the defendant did not waive the hearing and expressly denied the alleged violations.  The Court discussed other discrepancies in the judgments and the record, including that the trial court appeared to have revoked the defendant’s probation in 17 CRS 86913 on the basis of violating an SRG Agreement that was a valid condition of probation in 18 CRS 338 but was not a valid condition of 17 CRS 86913 as it had not been included in a written order in that case.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further determinations and findings.

(1) The defendant was convicted of drug offenses in Gaston County on July 5, 2017 and was sentenced to 24 months of supervised probation. After reporting for his intake visit with a Gaston County probation officer, the defendant avoided probation officers for several months. Probation officers attempted on six separate occasions to verify defendant’s residence at the address he provided. He was not present for any of these visits. On two of the visits, individuals who knew the defendant told the officers that the defendant no longer lived at the residence or that he planned to move from the residence.

Despite being on notice to maintain regular contact with probation officers, no probation officer met with the defendant in person following his initial intake visit before the first violation report alleging absconding was filed on September 14, 2017. On the few occasions that a probation officer could reach the defendant by phone, the officer notified the defendant that a home visit was scheduled. The defendant was absent from the home on those occasions and failed to apprise his probation officer of his whereabouts.

Even after the defendant was released from custody after being arrested for alleged probation violations relating to absconding, he failed to report to his probation officer within 24 hours as instructed. After defendant’s case was transferred from Gaston County to Lincoln County in March 2018, officers continued to have difficulty contacting him. And he failed to notify officers upon getting evicted from his listed residence.

An addendum was filed to the defendant’s probation violation report on May 31, 2018 alleging an additional incident of absconding. The trial court found that the defendant violated his probation by absconding and ordered his probation revoked. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on its finding that he willfully absconded from supervision.

The Court of Appeals found the State’s allegations and supporting evidence––reflecting defendant’s continuous, willful pattern of avoiding supervision and making his whereabouts unknown––sufficient to support the trial court’s exercise of discretion in revoking defendant’s probation for absconding.

(2) The trial court checked the box on the judgment form stating that the defendant waived a violation hearing and admitted the violations. This was inaccurate, as the record reflects that the defendant was present for his probation hearing and testified as a witness. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court committed a clerical error when it checked the box indicating otherwise and remanded the case to allow the trial court to correct the error.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked the defendant’s probation. The State presented sufficient evidence that the defendant willfully absconded by failing to report within 72 hours of his release from custody and thereafter avoiding supervision and making his whereabouts unknown from August 20 through the filing of a violation report on September 22. At the hearing, the defendant admitted that he knew he had to report to the probation office within 72 hours of release, that his mother had informed him that a probation officer had stopped by their home, and that his mother had given him a business card with the probation officer’s information on it. Moreover, the trial court found the defendant’s testimony that he did in fact report to the probation office as instructed to be lacking in credibility. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion because missing scheduled appointments cannot constitute absconding. The court noted that here the defendant did not simply miss an appointment or phone call with his probation officer. After the defendant was taken into custody for a violation based on absconding, the defendant knowingly failed to notify his probation officer of his release from custody. Thereafter, he actively avoided supervision each day after the initial 72-hour time period through and until September 22, 2017. This was a willful course of conduct by the defendant that thwarted supervision. His actions were a persistent avoidance of supervision and a continual effort to make his whereabouts unknown. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the defendant had absconded.

The trial court abused its discretion by revoking the defendant’s probation, where the evidence was insufficient to establish absconding. The probation officer testified that the defendant absconded a week after a 26 October 2016 meeting by failing attend meetings scheduled for 28 October and 2 November and by failing to contact the officer thereafter even though the officer attempted to call and visit the defendant multiple times and left messages for the defendant with the defendant’s parents. However, the officer could not support her testimony with records and did not recall the number of times and dates on which these contacts were made. The defendant testified that her cell phone was missing, that she was not at home when the officer visited, and that she received no messages that the officer was trying to reach her. She testified that since she had seen the officer at the end of October, it did not occur to her to contact the officer. Although the officer testified to attempts to call and visit the defendant and to having left messages with the defendant’s parents for the defendant, there was no evidence that any message was given to the defendant or that the defendant knew the officer was trying to reach her. Although there was competent evidence that the officer attempted to contact the defendant, there was insufficient evidence that the defendant willfully refused to make herself available for supervision.

The trial court did not err by revoking the defendant’s probation based on its finding that he willfully absconded from supervision. Reviewing the facts of the case, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence that he willfully absconded from supervision.

The trial court properly revoked the defendant’s probation, where the defendant committed a new crime while on probation.

The trial court did not err by revoking the defendant’s probation where the evidence showed that he willfully absconded. The defendant moved from his residence, without notifying or obtaining prior permission from his probation officer, willfully avoided supervision for multiple months, and failed to make his whereabouts known to his probation officer at any time thereafter. 

Applying the Justice Reinvestment Act (JRA), the court held that the trial court improperly revoked the defendant’s probation. The defendant violated the condition of probation under G.S. 15A-1343(b)(2) that she not leave the jurisdiction without permission and monetary conditions under G.S. 15A-1343(b). She did not commit a new crime, was not subject to the new absconding condition codified by the JRA in G.S. 15A-1343(b)(3a), and had served no prior CRVs under G.S. 15A 1344(d2). Thus, under the JRA, her probation could not be revoked. 

The trial court erred by revoking the defendant’s probation. The defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 120 days confinement suspended for one year of supervised probation. The trial court ordered the defendant to perform 48 hours of community service, although no date for completion of the community service was noted on the judgment, and to pay $1,385 in costs, fines, and fees, as well as the probation supervision fee. The schedule required for the defendant’s payments and community service was to be established by the probation officer. The probation officer filed a violation report alleging that the defendant had willfully violated his probation by failing to complete any of his community service, being $700 in arrears of his original balance, and being in arrears of his supervision fee. The defendant was found to have willfully violated and was revoked. The court concluded that absent any evidence of a required payment schedule or schedule for community service, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of willful violation.

(1) The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant’s probation. The defendant asserted that the revocation was improper because he never received a written statement containing the conditions of his probation, as required by G.S. 15A-1343(c). The court noted that the statute requires written notice. However, citing an unpublished opinion, it noted that a different approach applies when the violation is a failure to initially report for processing, as happened here. In this case the defendant walked away from the probation office before he could be given the written notice. The court concluded that because the trial judge informed the defendant of his obligation to report and the defendant failed to do so, written confirmation was not necessary. (2) The court also rejected the defendant’s argument that he could not have violated probation because he was not assigned a probation officer, reasoning that the defendant was not so assigned because he left in the middle of intake procedure.

The trial court erred by revoking the defendant’s probation on grounds that he willfully violated the condition that he reside at a residence approved by the supervising officer. The defendant was violated on the day he was released from prison, before he even “touched outside.” Prior to his release the defendant, who was a registered sex offender and indigent, had tried unsuccessfully to work with his case worker to secure a residence. At the revocation hearing, the trial judge rejected defense counsel’s plea for a period of 1-2 days for the defendant to secure a residence. The court concluded that the defendant’s violation was not willful and that probation was “revoked because of circumstances beyond his control.” 

The defendant’s explanation that she was addicted to drugs was not a lawful excuse for violating probation by failing to complete a drug treatment program. 

The court rejected the defendant’s argument that his revocation was improper because the attorney who represented him at the revocation hearing was not his appointed attorney and trial court made no findings about a substitute attorney. Any error that occurred was not prejudicial.

(1) The trial court improperly ordered a forfeiture of the defendant’s licensing privileges without making a finding of fact required by G.S. 15A-1331A that the defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with the conditions of her probation. The court noted that form AOC-CR-317 does not contain a section specifically designated for the required finding and encouraged revision of the form to add this required finding. (2) The term of the forfeiture exceeded statutory limits. A trial court revoking probation may order a license forfeiture under G.S. 15A-1331A(b)(2) at any time during the probation term, but the term of forfeiture cannot exceed the original probation term set by the sentencing court at the time of conviction. The defendant was placed on 24 months probation by the sentencing court, to end on December 15, 2009. His probation was revoked on Apr. 1, 2009, eight months before his probation was set to expire, and the trial court ordered the forfeiture for 24 months from the date of revocation. Because the forfeiture term extended beyond the defendant’s original probation, it was invalid. The court encouraged further revision of AOC-CR-317 (specifically the following note: “The ‘Beginning Date’ is the date of the entry of this judgment, and the ‘Ending Date’ is the date of the end of the full probationary term imposed at the time of conviction.”) “to clarify this issue and perhaps avoid future errors based upon misinterpretation of the form.”