STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v
.
Pitt County
No. 03 CRS 64190
DOMINIQUE HILL
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General M.
Elizabeth Guzman, for the State.
Terry F. Rose, Esq., for defendant-appellant.
STEELMAN, Judge.
The trial court erred by revoking defendant's probation
approximately eighty days after his probationary period expired,
because the court failed to make a judicial finding that the State
made a reasonable effort to conduct the probation revocation
hearing during the period of probation set out in the judgment and
commitment.
On 16 July 2004, Dominique Hill (“defendant”) pled guilty to
felony possession of marijuana. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
judgment was entered pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. .90-96, which
provided that defendant would be placed on supervised probation for
eighteen months.
On 28 September 2005, defendant's probation officer filed a
violation report alleging that defendant had been charged withfelony possession of cocaine and misdemeanor possession of drug
paraphernalia in Craven County on 7 July 2005. Defendant's
probation violation hearing was calendered in Pitt County for 31
October 2005. The record does not indicate what occurred in court
on that date.
On 9 March 2006, the State dismissed the probation violation
because the probation officer did not appear in court.
On 6 April 2006, approximately eighty days after the
expiration of defendant's term of probation, the State prayed
judgment in defendant's case. Defendant objected, asserting that
the trial court was without jurisdiction over the case. The trial
court overruled this objection, entered judgment based upon
defendant's previous guilty plea, and imposed a sentence to six to
eight months. This sentence was suspended, and defendant was
placed on supervised probation for twenty-four months. Defendant
appeals.
In his first argument, defendant contends that the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction in this case. We agree.
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 15A-1344(f) provides that “[t]he court may
revoke probation after the expiration of the period of probation
if”:
(1) Before the expiration of the period of
probation the State has filed a written motion
with the clerk indicating its intent to
conduct a revocation hearing; and
(2) The court finds that the State has made
reasonable effort to notify the probationer
and to conduct the hearing earlier.
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 15A-1344(f). This Court has explicitly held thatthe requirements contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. . 15A-1344(f) apply
to judgments entered pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. . 90-96. State v.
Burns, 171 N.C. App. 759, 615 S.E.2d 347 (2005).
After the expiration of the period of probation, a trial court
lacks jurisdiction to revoke a defendant's probation and activate
a suspended sentence, except as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat.
15A-1344(f). State v. Camp, 299 N.C. 524, 527-28, 263 S.E.2d 592,
594 (1980). A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation
and activate a suspended sentence when the trial fails “to make a
judicial finding that the State has made a reasonable effort to
conduct the probation revocation hearing during the period of
probation set out in the judgment and commitment.” State v.
Bryant, 361 N.C. 100, 102-03, 637 S.E.2d 532, 534 (2006). As in
Bryant and Burns, the trial court here failed to make findings of
fact as required pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. . 15A-1344(f)(2)
before revoking defendant's probation.
We conclude, based upon the holdings of Camp, Bryant and
Burns, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke
defendant's probation. We therefore arrest the judgment of the
trial court.
Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction
to revoke defendant's probation, we do not reach defendant's
remaining arguments.
REVERSED.
Judges BRYANT and LEVINSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***