State v. Williams
Decision Date | 15 September 2015 |
Docket Number | No. COA15–49.,COA15–49. |
Citation | 776 S.E.2d 741,243 N.C.App. 198 |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina, v. Logan WILLIAMS, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann Stone, for the State.
Peter Wood, for Defendant.
Logan Williams ("Defendant") was placed on supervised probation on 15 January 2014 after pleading guilty to possession with intent to sell heroin. A probation violation report ("the report") was filed on 9 July 2014, alleging that Defendant had violated seven conditions of his probation, including, inter alia, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, failing to report as ordered for scheduled office contacts, changing his address without informing his probation officer, and absconding. A probation revocation hearing ("the hearing") was conducted on 28 August 2014.
Defendant's probation officer (or "the probation officer") testified at the hearing that, on 27 May 2014, when she went to the address Defendant had given as his residence, a woman informed her that Defendant had been "back and forth" to the address but had "never really lived at [the] address[.]" Defendant's probation officer testified the woman informed her that Defendant had been going back and forth from North Carolina to New Jersey. The probation officer further testified that Defendant did not show up for a scheduled appointment on 16 June 2014, and did not respond to a message left on 16 June 2014 requiring him to come to her office on 17 June 2014. Defendant called the probation officer on 23 June 2014 and left a message. The probation officer talked to Defendant on 24 June 2014 and told him to show for an appointment on 1 July 2014. Defendant failed to attend the 1 July 2014 appointment, but answered the phone when the probation officer called him that evening. The probation officer advised Defendant that he had to come by her office the next day, 2 July 2014. Defendant failed to make that appointment, and the probation officer testified that, when she called Defendant, he said he was in New Jersey.
The probation officer obtained an order for Defendant's arrest and informed Defendant that he was required to show up at the probation office on 8 July 2014 at 4:00 p.m. Defendant arrived at the probation office at 3:30 p.m. on 8 July 2014. The probation officer testified that Defendant "admitted to going back and forth to ... New Jersey, and [that she] just couldn't locate him and he wasn't making himself available for supervision." The trial court found that Defendant had violated all seven of the conditions alleged in the report and activated Defendant's sentence on 28 August 2014. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by revoking his probation because the State failed to prove a violation of the absconding provision in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1343(b). We agree.
Defendant does not argue that the trial court erred in finding he violated sections two through seven of the report. Defendant only argues that the evidence and law does not support a conclusion that he absconded. This matter is controlled by N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A–1343 and 15A–1344.
State v. Nolen, 228 N.C.App. 203, 204, 743 S.E.2d 729, 730 (2013) (citations omitted). A trial court may no longer revoke a defendant's probation for a probation violation, unless that violation is committing a new crime or absconding, or unless the violation follows two prior periods of confinement in response to violations ("CRV"). Id. In its brief, the State does not argue that Defendant absconded, but simply states that "the [trial] court was reasonably satisfied in its discretion that [ ] Defendant violated the conditions of his probation and that the violations were willful and without lawful excuse." The State argues:
[W]here the trial court is reasonably satisfied that a [d]efendant has willfully violated a valid condition of his probation without lawful excuse, it is within the court's discretion to revoke [d]efendant's probationary sentence and invoke the active sentence. State v. Freeman, 47 N.C.App. 171, 175, 266 S.E.2d 723, 725 (1980).
As indicated in Nolen, this is no longer a correct statement of the law for violations occurring on or after 1 December 2011. Nolen, 228 N.C.App. at 204, 743 S.E.2d at 730 ; State v. Kornegay, 228 N.C.App. 320, 321–24, 745 S.E.2d 880, 882–83 (2013). In the case before us, the trial court could only revoke Defendant's probation if it found that Defendant had absconded in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1343(b)(3a).
The report contains the following relevant alleged probation violations:
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1343 sets forth the regular conditions of probation and states in relevant part:
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1343 (2013). "Regular conditions of probation apply to each defendant placed on supervised probation unless the presiding judge specifically exempts the defendant from one or more of the conditions in open court and in the judgment of the court." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1343(b). "N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1344(a) (2013) (emphasis added).
The form for judgment and commitment upon revocation of probation in effect on 28 August 2014 included five sections. The third section had a subsection to indicate which conditions of probation Defendant violated. In its judgment and commitment, the trial court indicated that Defendant had violated all seven conditions included in the report. The fourth section included a box to check if the trial court concluded that "[e]ach violation is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis upon which [the trial court] should revoke probation and activate the suspended sentence." The trial court checked this box. However, only the first alleged violation in the report, absconding, could potentially constitute an offense for which Defendant's probation could be revoked.1
Because the alleged violations occurred after 1 December 2011, the trial court was required to check all boxes in section five that applied. Section five of the judgment form stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Cottrell
..., 258 N.C. App. 111, 810 S.E.2d 828 (2018), State v. Jakeco Johnson , 246 N.C. App. 139, 783 S.E.2d 21 (2016), and State v. Williams , 243 N.C. App. 198, 776 S.E.2d 741 (2015).In Krider , the defendant failed to be present during the probation officer’s visit to the address provided by the ......
-
State v. Crompton
...revocation of a defendant's probation unless the requirements of Section 15A-1344(d2) have also been met. State v. Williams , 243 N.C. App. 198, 204, 776 S.E.2d 741, 745 (2015). Pursuant to Section 15A-1344(d2), a defendant's parole may be revoked following a violation of Section 15A-1343(b......
-
State v. Gantt
...conditions of probation according to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(d2). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a) (2019) ; State v. Williams , 243 N.C. App. 198, 199-200, 776 S.E.2d 741, 742 (2015).At the beginning of the hearing on the probation violation reports, Defendant acknowledged, through counsel,......
-
State v. Krider
...SUPERVISION.The State’s allegations and supporting evidence are very similar to that which we rejected in State v. Williams , 243 N.C.App. 198, 776 S.E.2d 741 (2015). In Williams , the State filed a report alleging that the defendant had violated seven conditions of his probation, including......