Court Opinion

ID: 9580813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:09:15.333911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:33.093366
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge
dissenting.
“In the absence of statutorily mandated factual findings, the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation after expiration of the probationary period is not preserved.” State v. Bryant, 361 N.C. 100, 103, 637 S.E.2d 532, 534 (2006). Here, the majority holds, and I agree, that the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings to preserve its jurisdiction to revoke Defendant’s probation after the expiration of the period of probation. I, however, disagree with the majority’s decision to remand this matter “to enter sufficient findings” because under Bryant, in the absence of the required statutory findings, this Court should vacate the order revoking Defendant’s probation. In Bryant, the Supreme Court held that Section 15A-1334(f) of the North Carolina General Statute “unambiguously requires the trial court 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.” Id. at 102-03, 637 S.E.2d at 534. Moreover, “[i]n the absence of statutorily mandated factual findings, the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation after expiration of the probationary period is not preserved.” Id. at 103, 637 S.E.2d at 534. Furthermore,“[t]he statute makes no exception to this finding of fact requirement based upon the strength of the evidence in the record.” Id.
Here, as in Bryant, the trial court failed to make the required statutory findings of fact. Accordingly, Bryant compels us to set aside the trial court’s order revoking Defendant’s probation. Additionally, as in Bryant, the State asks this Court to remand this matter to the trial court to make additional findings. However, in this case, “further proceedings are neither necessary nor advisable.” Id. at 104, 637 S.E.2d at 535 (citation omitted).
Moreover, the majority states that it has found the necessary facts to support upholding the invocation of jurisdiction after the expiration of Defendant’s probation:
*539Therefore, ¡because there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that the State made reasonable efforts to conduct a hearing prior to the expiration of defendant’s probation, this case is remanded to the trial court to enter sufficient material findings.
Having so found and enumerated the findings of fact that would support the order in this case, the majority usurps the authority of the trial court to do the same by directing it to “enter sufficient findings of fact.”
Because the trial court failed to make the statutorily mandated findings, this matter should be vacated.