Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2018App. ___, ___, 783 S.E.2d 21, 26 (2016), our case law has made it clear that violations of §§ 15A-1343(b)(2) and (3) are insufficient to establish the revocable violation of absconding under § 15A-1343(b)(3a). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tindallgreen2 sentences2017See, e.g. , id. at 187 , 742 S.E.2d at 275 ; see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b)(15) (2015) (requiring as a regular condition of probation that a defendant "[n]ot use, possess, or control any illegal drug or controlled substance"). **355 As defense counsel discussed at oral argument before this Court, the facts of this case provide another example in which allegations of behavior are insufficient to put a defendant on notice of the probation hearing's possible consequences. 2017See, e.g. , id. at 187 , 742 S.E.2d at 275 ; see also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1343(b)(15) (2015) (requiring as a regular condition of probation that a defendant "[n]ot use, possess, or control any illegal drug or controlled substance"). **355 As defense counsel discussed at oral argument before this Court, the facts of this case provide another example in which allegations of behavior are insufficient to put a defendant on notice of the probation hearing's possible consequences. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Moore
green
2 sentences2025As to “whether the probation violation reports sufficiently alleged that defendant absconded supervision[,]” this Court’s analysis is guided by our [Supreme Court’s] discussion in State v. Moore, 370 N.C. 338 , 807 S.E.2d 550 (2017), in which [the Court] addressed whether a probation violation report sufficiently alleged that the defendant had committed the revocable violation of committing a new criminal offense while on probation as prohibited by [North Carolina General Statute Section] 15A-1343(b)(1). 2025As to “whether the probation violation reports sufficiently alleged that defendant absconded supervision[,]” this Court’s analysis is guided by our [Supreme Court’s] discussion in State v. Moore, 370 N.C. 338 , 807 S.E.2d 550 (2017), in which [the Court] addressed whether a probation violation report sufficiently alleged that the defendant had committed the revocable violation of committing a new criminal offense while on probation as prohibited by [North Carolina General Statute Section] 15A-1343(b)(1). | 4 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Beck
green
2 sentences2022State v. Beck, 359 N.C. 611 , 614– 15 (2005) (rejecting a criminal defendant’s interpretation of a statute that “could lead to absurd results.”). ¶ 15 In applying the principles espoused and established in Moore to the present case, there was no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in its decision to revoke defendant’s probation and to activate his suspended sentences upon defendant’s admission of his commission of the revocable violation of absconding probation. 2022State v. Beck, 359 N.C. 611 , 614– 15 (2005) (rejecting a criminal defendant’s interpretation of a statute that “could lead to absurd results.”). ¶ 15 In applying the principles espoused and established in Moore to the present case, there was no abuse of discretion committed by the trial court in its decision to revoke defendant’s probation and to activate his suspended sentences upon defendant’s admission of his commission of the revocable violation of absconding probation. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2020Williams, 243 N.C. 2020Williams, 243 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.