Opinion ID: 1374720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: criminal prosecution

Text: Although this Court has not specifically addressed whether a post-release revocation hearing is a criminal prosecution, it has long held that a proceeding to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution. State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1967); see also State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337, 196 S.E.2d 185, 188 (1973). In support of this conclusion, our appellate courts have noted that unlike criminal prosecutions, probation revocation proceedings are informal, summary proceedings. Hewett, 270 N.C. at 353, 154 S.E.2d at 479-80; see State v. Monk, 132 N.C.App. 248, 252-53, 511 S.E.2d 332, 334-35, appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 350 N.C. 845, 539 S.E.2d 1 (1999). This Court has also noted that: The inquiry of the court at such a hearing is not directed to the probationer's guilt or innocence [as in a criminal prosecution], but to the truth of the accusation of a violation of probation. The crucial question is: Has the probationer abused the privilege of grace extended to him by the court? Hewett, 270 N.C. at 352, 154 S.E.2d at 479. This Court reasoned further that a decision to revoke probation affects conditional and not absolute liberty and [t]he rights of an offender in a proceeding to revoke his conditional liberty . . . are not coextensive with the . . . constitutional rights of one on trial in a criminal prosecution. Id. at 351, 154 S.E.2d at 478 (citations omitted). Hence, while an individual facing the possibility of probation revocation is entitled to certain procedural protections such as the right to appear before a judge, no formal trial is required and strict rules of evidence do not apply. Id. at 353, 154 S.E.2d at 479-80; see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1345 (2005). Unlike in a criminal prosecution, the alleged violation of a valid condition of probation need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Hewett, 270 N.C. at 353, 154 S.E.2d at 480 (citations omitted). Numerous similarities between a post-release revocation hearing and a probation revocation hearing support the State's contention and the conclusion that such a hearing is not a criminal prosecution, but rather an informal, summary proceeding. As with probation, [t]he purpose of the revocation hearing is to determine whether the parolee or the [post-release] supervisee committed violations of conditions of [his conditional release] and, if so, whether parole or [post-release] should be revoked. Clarke, Sentencing 189. Next, regardless of whether the decision is to revoke a defendant's parole or his post-release both entail the revocation of a defendant's conditional liberty. N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1373(a) (parole), -1368.3(a) (post-release). Furthermore, as in the probation context, the defendant is not afforded the same procedural protections as when facing criminal prosecution. For example, formal rules of evidence do not apply and violations need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1376 (parole), -1368.6 (post-release). In addition to these similarities, the fact that both parole and post-release supervision have always been functions of the executive and not the judicial branch supports the conclusion that these hearings are not criminal prosecutions. Jernigan v. State, 10 N.C.App. 562, 565-66, 179 S.E.2d 788, 791 ([T]he power to grant and to revoke paroles developed originally as a function of the executive branch of government and has never been considered to be a judicial function.), aff'd, 279 N.C. 556, 184 S.E.2d 259 (1971); see Act of July 24, 1993, ch. 538, 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws 2298, 2329-70 (codified as amended at N.C.G.S. ch. 15A, arts. 84A and 85, and ch. 143B, art. 6, pt. 3 (2005)) (creating post-release supervision and entrusting administration of post release and parole programs to the Commission). Further, we note that the majority of federal courts that have considered the issue, including the United States Supreme Court, have determined that probation, parole, and federal supervised release [3] revocation hearings are not criminal prosecutions. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1760, 36 L.Ed.2d 656, 661-62 (1973) (probation); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484, 494 (1972) ([R]evocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations.); see Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700-01, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 1801, 146 L.Ed.2d 727, 736 (2000) (supervised release). In addition to this federal jurisprudence, appellate courts of other states that have considered the issue have uniformly reached the same conclusion. E.g., Billings v. State, 53 Ark.App. 219, 224, 921 S.W.2d 607, 610 (1996) (Neither parole revocation nor suspended sentence revocation is a stage of a criminal prosecution.) (citations omitted); People v. Gallegos, 914 P.2d 449, 451 (Colo. Ct.App.1995) ([A] criminal contempt proceeding is distinguishable from a parole revocation proceeding, which is not a criminal prosecution.); Smith v. State, 171 Ga.App. 279, 282-83, 319 S.E.2d 113, 117 (1984) (A probation hearing is not a part of the criminal prosecution and is not a second sentencing, or second imposition of punishment for the same offense.); McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1243 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) ([D]ouble jeopardy protection applies only to criminal proceedings and probation revocation proceedings are not criminal proceedings.). Accordingly, we conclude that a post-release revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the extensive authority cited above, both from this state and from other jurisdictions, fails to support defendant's argument that such a hearing is analogous to a nonsummary criminal contempt proceeding. See Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696, 113 S.Ct. at 2856, 125 L.Ed.2d at 567-68 (stating that criminal contempt . . . enforced through nonsummary proceedings[ ] is `a crime in the ordinary sense' and the constitutional protections of double jeopardy apply (citations omitted)).