Court Opinion

ID: 9891005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 12:08:01.211304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:40.628081
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                  No. COA22-984

                               Filed 17 October 2023

Perquimans County, No. 18CRS050368

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

              v.

QUENTIN JACKSON

        Appeal by Defendant from order entered 14 March 2022 by Judge Jerry Tillett

in Perquimans County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September

2023.

        Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Carolyn
        McLain, for the State-Appellee.

        Hynson Law, PLLC, by Warren D. Hynson, for Defendant-Appellant.

        COLLINS, Judge.

        Defendant Quentin Jackson appeals from the trial court’s order finding that

he had willfully violated the conditions of his probation, extending his probation by

12 months, and ordering him to serve a 45-day active term as a condition of special

probation. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by extending his probation

after his probationary term had expired and by ordering him to serve an active term.

The trial court erred by extending Defendant’s probation after his probationary term

had expired, absent a specific finding of good cause. Furthermore, the trial court
                                 STATE V. JACKSON

                                     Opinion of the Court

erred by ordering Defendant to serve an active term as a condition of special

probation. Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand the case to the trial court to

determine whether good cause exists to extend Defendant’s probation beyond the

expiration of his probationary term.

                                I.      Background

      Defendant, a town council member, was at a Hertford Town Council meeting

on 1 October 2018. At the end of the meeting, Defendant struck another council

member in the side of the face following a verbal altercation. Defendant was arrested

for assault of a government official and entered an Alford plea to simple assault on

16 December 2019. The trial court sentenced Defendant to 60 days of imprisonment,

suspended for 24 months of supervised probation. As a condition of special probation,

Defendant was required to serve an active term of 15 days. Upon release, Defendant

was required to abide by a curfew from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m., except to attend town council

meetings.

      Defendant’s probation officer filed the following violation reports: on 21

January 2020, alleging that Defendant had violated his curfew and requiring

Defendant to submit to electronic monitoring; on 28 January 2020, alleging that

Defendant had violated his curfew, left the county without prior approval, and failed

to comply with electronic monitoring; on 21 February 2020, alleging that Defendant

had violated his curfew; and on 12 March 2020, alleging that Defendant had violated

his curfew and left the county without prior approval.

                                            -2-
                                 STATE V. JACKSON

                                  Opinion of the Court

      A probation violation hearing was calendared for 27 August 2020 and

Defendant moved for a continuance. The trial court granted the motion and entered

an order modifying Defendant’s probation to require him to comply with his curfew

and electronic monitoring and continuing the hearing until 6 October 2020.

Defendant’s probationary term expired on 16 December 2021. A probation violation

hearing was ultimately held on 24 February 2022, and the trial court entered an order

on 14 March 2022 finding that Defendant had willfully violated the conditions of his

probation in the violation reports filed 28 January 2020 and 21 February 2020. The

trial court extended Defendant’s probation by 12 months and ordered him to serve an

active term of 45 days as a condition of special probation. Defendant appealed.

                                II.   Discussion

A. Probation Extension

      Defendant argues that the trial court erred by extending his probation after

his probationary term had expired absent a specific finding of good cause.

      Whether a trial court has the authority to extend a defendant’s probation after

the defendant’s probationary term has expired is a jurisdictional question, which we

review de novo. State v. Geter, 383 N.C. 484, 488-89, 881 S.E.2d 209, 213 (2022).

Under de novo review, this Court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes

its own judgment for that of the lower court. Archie v. Durham Pub. Sch. Bd. of

Educ., 283 N.C. App. 472, 474, 874 S.E.2d 616, 619 (2022).

                                         -3-
                                  STATE V. JACKSON

                                  Opinion of the Court

      The trial court may extend, modify, or revoke probation after the probationary

term has expired if:

             (1) Before the expiration of the period of probation the
             State has filed a written violation report with the clerk
             indicating its intent to conduct a hearing on one or more
             violations of one or more conditions of probation.
             (2) The court finds that the probationer did violate one or
             more conditions of probation prior to the expiration of the
             period of probation.
             (3) The court finds for good cause shown and stated that
             the probation should be extended, modified, or revoked.
             (4) If the court opts to extend the period of probation, the
             court may extend the period of probation up to the
             maximum allowed under G.S. 15A-1342(a).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(f) (2021).

      In other words, to extend a defendant’s probation after the probationary term

has expired, “the trial court must first make a finding that the defendant did violate

a condition of his probation.” State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609, 617, 831 S.E.2d 254, 259

(2019). “After making such a finding, trial courts are then required by subsection

(f)(3) to make an additional finding of ‘good cause shown and stated’ to justify the

[extension] of probation even though the defendant’s probationary term has expired.”

Id. A finding of good cause “cannot simply be inferred from the record.” Id.

      Here, Defendant’s probationary term expired on 16 December 2021.               A

probation violation hearing was held on 24 February 2022, over two months after

Defendant’s probationary term had expired.          The trial court’s order extending

Defendant’s probation contains no finding of good cause to do so. Thus, the trial court

                                         -4-
                                       STATE V. JACKSON

                                        Opinion of the Court

erred by extending Defendant’s probation by 12 months after his probationary term

had expired without making a specific finding that good cause exists to extend his

probation. See id.

       We are unable to say from our review of the record that no evidence exists that

would allow the trial court on remand to make a finding of good cause under

subsection (f)(3). Accordingly, we vacate the order and remand the case to the trial

court to determine whether good cause exists to extend Defendant’s probation despite

the expiration of his probationary term and, if so, to make a finding in conformity

with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(f)(3). See id. at 618, 831 S.E.2d at 260.

B. Active Term

       Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve an

active term of 45 days as a condition of special probation because “the maximum

sentence of imprisonment for the convicted offense was 60 days” and “it results in

imprisonment two years past conviction[.]”1 (capitalization altered).

       Although a challenge to a trial court’s decision to impose a condition of

probation is generally reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion, an alleged error in

statutory interpretation is an error of law, which we review de novo. State v. Ray,

       1 The State contends that this argument is moot because “[i]nformation from the Perquiman

County’s Superior Court clerk’s office indicates that defendant served the sentence, beginning on 24
February 2023 and ending 10 April 2023.” This information does not appear in the record before us.
Nevertheless, Defendant’s argument is not moot because his probation violation may be used as an
aggravating factor in a subsequent sentencing hearing. See State v. Black, 197 N.C. App. 373, 377,
677 S.E.2d 199, 202 (2009).

                                                -5-
                                 STATE V. JACKSON

                                 Opinion of the Court

274 N.C. App. 240, 246, 851 S.E.2d 653, 658 (2020).

      “When a defendant has violated a condition of probation, the court may modify

the probation to place the defendant on special probation[.]”        N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 15A-1344(e) (2021).

            Under a sentence of special probation, the court may
            suspend the term of imprisonment and place the defendant
            on probation . . . and in addition require that the defendant
            submit to a period or periods of imprisonment . . . at
            whatever time or intervals within the period of probation,
            consecutive or nonconsecutive, the court determines . . . .

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1351(a) (2021). However, in doing so,

            the total of all periods of confinement imposed as an
            incident of special probation, but not including an activated
            suspended sentence, may not exceed one-fourth the
            maximum sentence of imprisonment imposed for the
            offense, and no confinement other than an activated
            suspended sentence may be required beyond two years of
            conviction.

Id. Thus, the statute sets an outside deadline for an active term as a condition of

special probation as the end of the probationary term or two years after the date of

conviction, whichever comes first. Ray, 274 N.C. App. at 247, 851 S.E.2d at 658.

      Here, the trial court sentenced Defendant to 60 days of imprisonment,

suspended for 24 months of supervised probation.           Therefore, under section

15A-1351(a), the maximum period of confinement that could have been imposed as a

condition of special probation was 15 days. In the original judgment entered 16

December 2019, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve an active term of 15 days

                                        -6-
                                  STATE V. JACKSON

                                   Opinion of the Court

as a condition of special probation. By its probation violation order entered 14 March

2022, the trial court ordered Defendant to serve an additional active term of 45 days

as a condition of special probation.     Thus, the total period of confinement as a

condition of special probation was 60 days, a duration in excess of the maximum

period of confinement allowed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1351(a).

      Furthermore, Defendant pled guilty to simple assault pursuant to Alford on 16

December 2019. Defendant’s probationary term expired on 16 December 2021. Thus,

under section 15A-1351(a), the deadline for Defendant to serve an active term as a

condition of special probation was 16 December 2021. By its probation violation order

entered 14 March 2022, Defendant was ordered to serve an additional active term of

45 days as a condition of special probation, which was after his probation had expired

and more than two years after his conviction.

      Accordingly, the trial court erred by ordering Defendant to serve an active term

of 45 days as a condition of special probation.

                                III.   Conclusion

      The trial court erred by extending Defendant’s probation by 12 months after

his probationary term had expired, absent a specific finding of good cause.

Furthermore, the trial court erred by ordering Defendant to serve an active term as

a condition of special probation. Accordingly, we vacate and remand to the trial court

to determine whether good cause exists to extend Defendant’s probation beyond the

expiration of his probationary term.

                                          -7-
                      STATE V. JACKSON

                      Opinion of the Court

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Judges TYSON and WOOD concur.

                             -8-