probation revocation hearing in North Carolina

2022JONES 2022-NCSC-103 Opinion of the Court 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1967). ¶ 14 The limited rights a defendant enjoys in a probation revocation hearing are rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 781–82, 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 1759–60 (1973) (citation omitted), superseded by statute, Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub.

2022Ultimately, all that is required in a probation revocation hearing is that the evidence reasonably satisfy the trial court that a probationer “has willfully or without lawful excuse violated a condition of probation.” State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511, 516 , 299 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1983) (citing Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E.2d 476 ); see also Duncan, 270 N.C. at 245 , 154 S.E.2d at 57 . ¶ 17 Defendant here argues that he was deprived of both his constitutional right STATE V.

2022Ultimately, all that is required in a probation revocation hearing is that the evidence reasonably satisfy the trial court that a probationer “has willfully or without lawful excuse violated a condition of probation.” State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511, 516 , 299 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1983) (citing Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E.2d 476 ); see also Duncan, 270 N.C. at 245 , 154 S.E.2d at 57 . ¶ 17 Defendant here argues that he was deprived of both his constitutional right STATE V.

2022Ultimately, all that is required in a probation revocation hearing is that the evidence reasonably satisfy the trial court that a probationer “has willfully or without lawful excuse violated a condition of probation.” State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511, 516 , 299 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1983) (citing Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E.2d 476 ); see also Duncan, 270 N.C. at 245 , 154 S.E.2d at 57 . ¶ 17 Defendant here argues that he was deprived of both his constitutional right STATE V.

2022Ultimately, all that is required in a probation revocation hearing is that the evidence reasonably satisfy the trial court that a probationer “has willfully or without lawful excuse violated a condition of probation.” State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511, 516 , 299 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1983) (citing Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E.2d 476 ); see also Duncan, 270 N.C. at 245 , 154 S.E.2d at 57 . ¶ 17 Defendant here argues that he was deprived of both his constitutional right STATE V.

2022Ultimately, all that is required in a probation revocation hearing is that the evidence reasonably satisfy the trial court that a probationer “has willfully or without lawful excuse violated a condition of probation.” State v. Coltrane, 307 N.C. 511, 516 , 299 S.E.2d 199, 202 (1983) (citing Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 , 154 S.E.2d 476 ); see also Duncan, 270 N.C. at 245 , 154 S.E.2d at 57 . ¶ 17 Defendant here argues that he was deprived of both his constitutional right STATE V.

2020Stat. § 15A-1344(f)(3), we may only remand where “the record contain[s] sufficient evidence to permit the necessary finding of ‘reasonable efforts’ by the State to have conducted the probation revocation hearing earlier.” Morgan, 372 N.C. at 618 , 831 S.E.2d at 260 (citing Bryant, 361 N.C. at 104 , 637 S.E.2d at 535–536).

2020Stat. § 15A-1344(f)(3), we may only remand where “the record contain[s] sufficient evidence to permit the necessary finding of ‘reasonable efforts’ by the State to have conducted the probation revocation hearing earlier.” Morgan, 372 N.C. at 618 , 831 S.E.2d at 260 (citing Bryant, 361 N.C. at 104 , 637 S.E.2d at 535–536).

2016See State v. Kerrin, 209 N.C.App. 72 , 75, 703 S.E.2d 816 , 818 (2011) (concluding that "the trial court was not required to announce all of the findings and details of its judgment in open court"); State v. Williamson, 61 N.C.App. 531 , 533-34, 301 S.E.2d 423 , 425 (1983) ( "The minimum requirements of due process in a final probation revocation hearing" require "a written judgment by the judge *749 which shall contain (a) findings of fact as to the evidence relied on, [and] (b) reasons for revoking probation.").

2016See State v. Kerrin, 209 N.C.App. 72 , 75, 703 S.E.2d 816 , 818 (2011) (concluding that "the trial court was not required to announce all of the findings and details of its judgment in open court"); State v. Williamson, 61 N.C.App. 531 , 533-34, 301 S.E.2d 423 , 425 (1983) ( "The minimum requirements of due process in a final probation revocation hearing" require "a written judgment by the judge *749 which shall contain (a) findings of fact as to the evidence relied on, [and] (b) reasons for revoking probation.").

2026An “in-court admission of [a] willful . . . violation,” we said, “satisfies due process requirements at a probation revocation hearing.” Id. at 633, 865 S.E.2d at 756 (quoting State v. Sellers, 185 N.C.

2026In State v. Sellers, we held that “[i]n North Carolina, a probation revocation hearing is not a formal trial and, as such, due process does not require that the trial court personally examine a defendant regarding his admission that he violated his probation.” Sellers, 185 N.C.

2022Statutory right to confront witnesses at probation revocation hearings ¶ 44 A probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution, State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245 (1967), and therefore does not implicate a defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment, State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337 (1973).

2022Statutory right to confront witnesses at probation revocation hearings ¶ 44 A probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution, State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245 (1967), and therefore does not implicate a defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment, State v. Braswell, 283 N.C. 332, 337 (1973).

2022JONES 2022-NCSC-103 Opinion of the Court 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1967). ¶ 14 The limited rights a defendant enjoys in a probation revocation hearing are rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 781–82, 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 1759–60 (1973) (citation omitted), superseded by statute, Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub.

2022JONES 2022-NCSC-103 Opinion of the Court 348, 353, 154 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1967). ¶ 14 The limited rights a defendant enjoys in a probation revocation hearing are rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 , 781–82, 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 1759–60 (1973) (citation omitted), superseded by statute, Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, Pub.

2020See Id. at 316, 569 S.E.2d at 675 (holding the trial court failed to determine whether the defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and -9- STATE V.

2020See Id. at 316, 569 S.E.2d at 675 (holding the trial court failed to determine whether the defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and -9- STATE V.

2017The Court of Appeals stated that, in order "[t]o establish jurisdiction over specific allegations in a probation revocation hearing, the defendant either must waive notice or be given proper notice of the revocation hearing, including the specific grounds on which his probation might be revoked ." Id. at 324 , 745 S.E.2d at 883 (emphasis added).

2017The Court of Appeals stated that, in order "[t]o establish jurisdiction over specific allegations in a probation revocation hearing, the defendant either must waive notice or be given proper notice of the revocation hearing, including the specific grounds on which his probation might be revoked ." Id. at 324 , 745 S.E.2d at 883 (emphasis added).

2016But those documents were not introduced at the 15 October 2014 probation violation hearing in the trial court, even though it is the State's burden to establish jurisdiction in that court. *164 State v. Williams, 230 N.C.App. 590 , 595, 754 S.E.2d 826 , 829 (2013) ; State v. Moore, 148 N.C.App. 568 , 571, 559 S.E.2d 565 , 566-67 (2002) ("The burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing ... lies squarely with the State."); State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169 , 175, 432 S.E.2d 832 , 835 (1993) ("North Carolina requires the State to prove jurisdiction beyon

2016But those documents were not introduced at the 15 October 2014 probation violation hearing in the trial court, even though it is the State's burden to establish jurisdiction in that court. *164 State v. Williams, 230 N.C.App. 590 , 595, 754 S.E.2d 826 , 829 (2013) ; State v. Moore, 148 N.C.App. 568 , 571, 559 S.E.2d 565 , 566-67 (2002) ("The burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing ... lies squarely with the State."); State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169 , 175, 432 S.E.2d 832 , 835 (1993) ("North Carolina requires the State to prove jurisdiction beyon

2022Unlike at a criminal trial, at a probation revocation hearing, “the alleged violation . . . need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt” and all that is required instead is “that the evidence be such as to reasonably satisfy the judge in the exercise of h[er] sound discretion that the defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation.” Id. (internal marks and citations omitted).

2022Unlike at a criminal trial, at a probation revocation hearing, “the alleged violation . . . need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt” and all that is required instead is “that the evidence be such as to reasonably satisfy the judge in the exercise of h[er] sound discretion that the defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation.” Id. (internal marks and citations omitted).

2025GAULT Opinion of the Court whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review.” State v. Satanek, 190 N.C.

2019App. 291 , 292, 644 S.E.2d 26 , 27 (2007) (alteration, citation, and quotation marks omitted). "[A]n appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing *862 whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review." State v. Satanek , 190 N.C.

2021State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 286 , 103 S.E.2d 376, 379 (1958) (“In determining whether the evidence warrants the revocation of a suspended sentence, the credibility of the witnesses and the evaluation and weight of their testimony, are for the judge.”) (citations omitted)). ¶ 12 Our caselaw is clear that “a waiver of the presentation of the State’s evidence by an in-court admission of the willful or without lawful excuse violation as contained in the written notice (or report) of violation” satisfies due process requirements at a probation revocation hearing.

2021State v. Robinson, 248 N.C. 282, 286 , 103 S.E.2d 376, 379 (1958) (“In determining whether the evidence warrants the revocation of a suspended sentence, the credibility of the witnesses and the evaluation and weight of their testimony, are for the judge.”) (citations omitted)). ¶ 12 Our caselaw is clear that “a waiver of the presentation of the State’s evidence by an in-court admission of the willful or without lawful excuse violation as contained in the written notice (or report) of violation” satisfies due process requirements at a probation revocation hearing.

2025During a probation revocation hearing, the evidence must “reasonably satisfy the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion that the defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation or that the defendant has violated without lawful excuse a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended.” State v. Young, 190 N.C.

2023A probation revocation hearing requires evidence “to reasonably satisfy the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion that the defendant has willfully violated a valid condition of probation or that the defendant has violated without lawful excuse a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended.” State v. Young, 190 N.C.

2022BOYETTE 2022-NCCOA-904 Opinion of the Court ¶ 14 However, as each of these arguments incorrectly assumes that the exclusionary rule applies during probation revocation proceedings, they are all without merit.2 In 1982, our Supreme Court held “that evidence which does not meet the standards of the [F]ourth and [F]ourteenth [A]mendments to the United States Constitution may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing.” State v. Lombardo, 306 N.C. 594, 602 (1982).

1985In so doing, the Supreme Court expressly overruled State v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 775 , 92 S.E. 2d 205 (1956), holding that illegally seized evidence cannot be used to revoke probation, and held that “evidence which does not meet the standards of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution may be admitted in a probation revocation hearing.” Lombardo, supra at 602 , 295 S.E. 2d at 404 (original emphasis).

2022In probation violation hearing matters governed by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1344(f)(3) and its requirement of the existence of good cause in order for the trial court to be authorized to revoke probation after the period of probation has expired, we also find guidance in this Court’s treatment of continuance motions which are to be allowed upon “good cause shown.” In Shankle, this Court examined a situation in which a group of respondents in an estate action filed a motion to continue the trial after their retained counsel “left the court after the judge made strong remarks about respondents.” 289 N.C.

2022In probation violation hearing matters governed by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1344(f)(3) and its requirement of the existence of good cause in order for the trial court to be authorized to revoke probation after the period of probation has expired, we also find guidance in this Court’s treatment of continuance motions which are to be allowed upon “good cause shown.” In Shankle, this Court examined a situation in which a group of respondents in an estate action filed a motion to continue the trial after their retained counsel “left the court after the judge made strong remarks about respondents.” 289 N.C.

2022App. 775, 777 , 653 S.E.2d 908, 909 (2007) (“A defendant at a probation revocation hearing has a statutory right to counsel akin to the right enjoyed in a criminal trial.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).

2022App. 775, 777 , 653 S.E.2d 908, 909 (2007) (“A defendant at a probation revocation hearing has a statutory right to counsel akin to the right enjoyed in a criminal trial.” (emphasis added) (citations omitted)).

2022During a probation revocation hearing, “the ‘minimum requirements of due process’ include . . . ‘the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation)[.]’ ” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)).

2022During a probation revocation hearing, “the ‘minimum requirements of due process’ include . . . ‘the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation)[.]’ ” Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)).

2021N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343 (2019). ¶ 13 While at the probation revocation hearing, the judge orally stated “[t]he basis of the revocation is that [Defendant] has committed a new criminal offense[,]” the trial court’s written findings found Defendant’s probation was revoked for (1) committing new criminal offenses and (2) testing positive for cocaine. “[I]f there is some conflict between oral findings and ones that are reduced to writing, the written order controls for purposes of appeal.” State v. Johnson, 246 N.C.

2021N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343 (2019). ¶ 13 While at the probation revocation hearing, the judge orally stated “[t]he basis of the revocation is that [Defendant] has committed a new criminal offense[,]” the trial court’s written findings found Defendant’s probation was revoked for (1) committing new criminal offenses and (2) testing positive for cocaine. “[I]f there is some conflict between oral findings and ones that are reduced to writing, the written order controls for purposes of appeal.” State v. Johnson, 246 N.C.

2021Standard of Review “[T]he issue of a court’s jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by a court sua sponte.” “It is well settled that a court’s jurisdiction to review a probationer’s compliance with the terms of his probation is limited by statute.” “[A]n appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review.” “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own ju

2021Standard of Review “[T]he issue of a court’s jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by a court sua sponte.” “It is well settled that a court’s jurisdiction to review a probationer’s compliance with the terms of his probation is limited by statute.” “[A]n appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review.” “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own ju

2026Where the trial court fails to comply with the requirements in N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1344(f), “we proceed to determine whether the record contain[s] sufficient evidence to permit the necessary finding of ‘reasonable efforts’ by the State to have conducted the probation revocation hearing earlier.” State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609, 618 (2019).

2020Stat. § 15A-1344(f)(3), we may only remand where “the record contain[s] sufficient evidence to permit the necessary finding of ‘reasonable efforts’ by the State to have conducted the probation revocation hearing earlier.” Morgan, 372 N.C. at 618 , 831 S.E.2d at 260 (citing Bryant, 361 N.C. at 104 , 637 S.E.2d at 535–536).

2016But those documents were not introduced at the 15 October 2014 probation violation hearing in the trial court, even though it is the State's burden to establish jurisdiction in that court. *164 State v. Williams, 230 N.C.App. 590 , 595, 754 S.E.2d 826 , 829 (2013) ; State v. Moore, 148 N.C.App. 568 , 571, 559 S.E.2d 565 , 566-67 (2002) ("The burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing ... lies squarely with the State."); State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169 , 175, 432 S.E.2d 832 , 835 (1993) ("North Carolina requires the State to prove jurisdiction beyon

2016"The burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing after defendant's period of probation has expired lies squarely with the State." *33 Id. at 571, 559 S.E.2d at 566-67 (citations omitted).

2026“An appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review.” Gorman, 221 N.C.

2026App. at 333 , 727 S.E.2d at 733 (citation and brackets omitted).

2017Stat. § 15A-1344(f) imposes several conditions upon a court's authority to revoke or extend probation after the original term of probation has expired, including a requirement that "[b]efore 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." Moreover, "[t]he burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing after [the] defendant's period of probation has expired lies squarely with the State." Stat

2016But those documents were not introduced at the 15 October 2014 probation violation hearing in the trial court, even though it is the State's burden to establish jurisdiction in that court. *164 State v. Williams, 230 N.C.App. 590 , 595, 754 S.E.2d 826 , 829 (2013) ; State v. Moore, 148 N.C.App. 568 , 571, 559 S.E.2d 565 , 566-67 (2002) ("The burden of perfecting the trial court's jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing ... lies squarely with the State."); State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169 , 175, 432 S.E.2d 832 , 835 (1993) ("North Carolina requires the State to prove jurisdiction beyon

2005A probation revocation hearing “is not governed by the rules of a criminal trial[,]” and therefore “a jury is not required ... nor must the proof of violation be beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Freeman, 47 N.C.

1987See State v. Cooper, supra. Nevertheless, we have held that evidence at a probation revocation hearing “need be such that reasonably satisfies the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion that the defendant has violat *521 ed a valid condition on which the sentence was suspended.” State v. Freeman, 47 N.C.

2012App. 84 , 345 S.E.2d 437 (1986), arguing that in Warren the defendant was not entitled to a new probation revocation hearing where “[t]he defendant... signed ... a waiver, the trial court certified that defendant had been advised per G.S.

2011Although the transcript shows that the trial court advised defendant of his right to counsel for the probation revocation hearing, there is nothing in the record or the transcript indicating that the trial court conducted a thorough inquiry that showed that “defendant understands and appreciates the consequences of the decision to proceed pro se, and that the defendant comprehends the nature of the charges and proceedings and the range of possible punishments.” Id.