State v. Singletary
| Docket Number | COA22-1068 |
| Decision Date | 19 September 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASMIN R. SINGLETARY |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 August 2023.
Appeal by Defendant from a judgment entered 23 May 2022 by Judge L Lamont Wiggins in Wilson County Superior Court No. 21 CRS 204.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kyle Peterson, for the State.
Phoebe W. Dee, for the Defendant.
Jasmin Singletary ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's revocation of her probation and activation of a sentence of ten to twenty-one months imprisonment. Defendant was placed on thirty-six months of probation for five counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. Three violation reports were subsequently filed against her for, among other things, committing criminal offenses while on probation. Probation Officer Heather Horne ("Horne"), who testified for the State at Defendant's probation revocation hearing, had replaced Probation Officer Williams ("Williams"), Defendant's prior probation officer, shortly before the revocation hearing.
First Defendant argues there was not sufficient evidence before the trial court for it to find Defendant committed a crime while on probation where the State called no witnesses except the new probation officer to testify as to the alleged crimes. Second, Defendant argues the trial court violated her statutory confrontation rights when it proceeded with the probation revocation hearing without Williams and without making an explicit finding of good cause not to allow Defendant to confront her.
After careful review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to find Defendant committed a crime while on probation. We further conclude the trial court did not prejudicially err when it proceeded with the probation revocation hearing without Williams because other competent evidence established Defendant violated probation by committing a new criminal offense.
On 7 November 2019, Jasmin Singletary pleaded guilty to five counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. The trial court entered three judgments. Defendant was sentenced to an active sentence of imprisonment for a minimum of ten months and a maximum of twenty-one months, suspended for thirty-six months of probation. Defendant also was sentenced to a minimum of ten and maximum twenty-one months imprisonment, suspended for thirty-six months of supervised probation. The probationary sentence included a condition of paying $26,563.00 restitution to the victims of the false pretenses crimes as well as the costs of court, bringing the total cost to $27,415.50. Finally, Defendant was sentenced to another ten to twenty-one months imprisonment, also suspended for thirty-six months and subject to the same terms and conditions applying to the second judgment. The trial court ordered all sentences to run consecutively.
The regular conditions of Defendant's probation, as relevant to this case, also included:
[D]efendant shall: (1) Commit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction. . . . (6) Not abscond, by willfully avoiding supervision or by willfully making [D]efendant's whereabouts unknown to the supervising probation officer.... (8) Report as directed by the Court or the probation officer to the officer at reasonable times and places and in a reasonable manner[.]
After Defendant's release from jail, Defendant was on supervised probation in Wilson County.
On 21 January 2021, a probation officer filed a probation violation report alleging Defendant willfully failed to repay the amount ordered in restitution and court fees and failed to pay supervision fees. At a probation violation hearing held 26 July 2021, Defendant admitted to not having paid any money toward the restitution, court costs, and supervision fees, but she denied the willfulness of her failure to pay. The trial court found Defendant violated probation by her failure to pay restitution, court costs, and supervision fees. The court converted all restitution due except $5,000.00 to a civil judgment and ordered monthly payments of $50.00, with Defendant returning to court if she missed two or more payments.
Subsequently, three violation reports leading to Defendant's probation revocation hearing and the probation revocation at issue in this case were filed against Defendant: (1) a 1 November 2021 violation report alleging Defendant failed to make two $50.00 payments and committed a criminal offense as Defendant was charged on 1 September 2021 with obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged instrument in Johnston County; (2) a 22 December 2021 violation report alleging Defendant absconded by leaving her last known address and failing to make herself available for supervision; and (3) a 28 February 2022 violation report alleging that on 29 February 2022 Defendant was arrested and charged with uttering a forged instrument at the State Employee's Credit Union (SECU) in Wake County and violated her probation by being on the premises of a SECU on 31 August 2021, when the alleged offense was committed.
The probation violation hearing was held 23 May 2022. At the beginning of the probation revocation hearing, Defendant objected to Williams's absence, arguing Defendant had a right to cross-examine adverse witnesses unless the court found good cause for not allowing confrontation. Defendant's counsel relayed her understanding that Williams was "on leave and they did not know when she was coming back." Defendant's counsel explained there was conversation and text messages between Defendant and Williams about which Defendant wished to cross- examine Williams. The trial court asked for the State's position on the matter, and the State explained Williams was absent due to a death in her family. The trial court then asked if Defendant acknowledged she had been served with a copy of the violation report and was on notice of the allegations contained in the reports. Defendant's counsel acknowledged both points. The court stated, "the objection is noted for the record."
The State called Officer Horne as a witness. Horne had taken over as Defendant's probation officer. Williams was "not technically with the Department" at the time because of a death in her family at the hands of someone who was "criminally charged in a homicide." Horne testified Williams made her aware of Defendant's pending probation violations and asked for her assistance with Defendant's case. Horne further testified that she was familiar with Defendant, her case, and her violations.
Regarding the first violation report, Defendant admitted she had not made the $50.00 payments for two months but denied her willfulness. Through counsel, Defendant stated she since had paid some of it. Defendant admitted to the pending charges of obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged instrument but not to any "independent finding behind the charge." Horne testified Defendant cashed a check in the amount of $600.00 drawn on a closed bank account and admitted during a phone conversation with both Horne and Williams that she had cashed the check "to help her friends out." The state submitted two exhibits pertaining to the Johnston County charges of obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged instrument. The State submitted two still images, dated 1 September 2021, from security footage captured inside the SECU showing a woman standing in front of a bank teller's counter. Horne testified the Johnston County Sheriff's Office sent her a copy of the images. The State also submitted a warrant for Defendant's arrest for obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged instrument. The warrant accurately stated Defendant's date of birth. It further stated Defendant tried to deposit the check, which was "from a known closed BB&T checking account belonging to the Defendant[,] into a [SECU] account belonging to Dinesha Brice[.]" Horne testified she spoke with a Johnston County detective who stated the photographic evidence confirmed Defendant was at SECU, wrote a check, cashed it, and took funds.
Regarding the second violation report, Horne testified Defendant's last known address was a 406 Englewood Drive, at the time her case was accepted for courtesy supervision in Johnson County. Horne testified Williams went to this address on 3 October 2021, but Defendant was not there. On cross-examination, Defendant's counsel asked Horne if she was aware of a message sent by Defendant to inform Williams that Defendant had obtained a restraining order against her husband with whom she had been living at the Englewood address. Horne stated that while she could not testify as to a text message because she did not have access to Williams's cell phone, she was aware Defendant was scheduled to appear in court for a domestic violence case in December.
Horne testified Williams did not hear from Defendant until 26 October 2021, when Defendant called Williams and Horne (who were on the phone together) to explain her son had a mental health issue and she was taking him for treatment. Williams and Horne requested medical proof which Defendant did not provide. On 8 November 2021, Williams again went to the Englewood address, but family stated Defendant lived in Clayton. Defendant did not provide notice of her change of address to her probation officer, as required, nor did she make any visits to the probation office. Some time later Defendant reported an address in Johnston County stating she lived there with her friend. However, when a Johnston County officer visited this address, the resident stated Defendant did not live there but "only came through every once in a while." After further extensive efforts by probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial