An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedur e.

NO. COA13

- 1227 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 May 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Union County Nos. 09 CRS 55490

- 94, 55496

- 98, LISA STARNES MORGAN 55500

- 01

Appeal by D efendant from judgments entered 14 June 2013 by Judge Christopher W. Bragg in Superior Court, Union County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 April 2014
. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Karissa J. Davan, for the State. Mary McCullers Reece for D efendant

- A ppellant.

McGEE , Judge.
Lisa Starnes Morgan (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment s entered upon revocation of her probation. D efendant ple a d ed guilty to ten counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud on 17 February 2011 . Defendant received suspended
sentences of five to six months each, all of which were to run consecutively, and was placed on supervised probation for thirty

- six months
.- 2
-

D efendant’s probation officer filed violation reports in
each of the ten cases on 31 January 2013
. The reports alleged that D efendant violated her probation by: (1) being in arrears of the monetary conditions of her probation; and (2) commit ting multip le new criminal offense s . A probation revocation h earing was held on 14 June 2013 and Defendant admitted to being in willful violation of her probation. T he trial court revoked D efendant’s probation and activated her suspended sentences. Defendant timely filed written notice of appeal; however, the notice of appeal was not served upon the State and fail ed to properly identify the court to which the appeal wa s being taken.
D efendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari on 6 November 2013 seeking review of the judgments entered , because her notice of appeal did not comply with Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. In our discretion, we grant D efendant’s
pe tition for writ of certiorari and review her arguments. Defenda nt argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation because the trial court was under the misapprehension of law that “each violation is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis upon which [a] court should revoke- 3
-

probation and activate t he suspended sentence
. ” We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, we note that D efendant committed some of her alleged probation violations prior to the 1 Dece mber 2011 effective date of the Justice Reinvestment Act (“JRA”) , and some were committed afte r the effective date of the JRA
. See State v. Hunnicutt , __ N.C. App.

___ ,

___ , 740 S.E.2d 906, 911 (2013) (citing 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws 192, sec. 4.(d); 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws 412, sec. 2.5). Under the JRA, only certain violations of probation are sufficie nt to revoke a defendant’s probation , including whe n a defendant commits a new offense
. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A

– 134 4(a) (2013). This provision differs from the prior law in this s tate under which “[a]ny violation of a valid condition of probation [wa]s suf ficient to revoke [a] defendant’ s probation.” State v. Tozzi , 84 N.C. App. 517, 521, 353 S.E.2d 250, 253 (1987). Because some of Defendant’s alleged violations occurred prior to the effective date of the JRA and

some occurred after the effective date , we must apply both the JRA and prior law.
T he trial court found D efendant had violated h er probation as alleged in the probation violation report s . Defendant argues the trial court erroneously applied the pre

- JRA doctrine that- 4
-

any violation of probation is sufficient to justify revocation. Id. at 521, 353 S.E.2d at 253. H owever, D efendant’s conviction of a new criminal offense was a substantial factor in the trial court’s decision to revoke her probation as shown by the trial
court admonish ing D efendant:

THE COURT: Ms. Morgan, you were put on probation for ten counts, okay, of basically obtaining property
-- obtaining controlled substance by fraud. And then in January of this year, you get another conviction for attempti ng to obtain controlled substance by fraud, which is basically the same thing that you're on probation for. All right. I can ’t ignore that. You’ re on probation, and you do the same thing again while you’ re on probation. Under both the JRA and prior law , committing a criminal offense while on probation is a ground upon which a defendant’s probation can be revoked. Consequently, it is immaterial whether we analyze D efendant’s violations of her probation under the JRA or prior law. There is no indication that the trial court acted under a misapprehension of law. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking D efendant’s probation. Affirmed. Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).