State v. HancockÂ, 248 N.C. App. 744

Brian Hancock pleaded guilty (Sept. 12, 2012) to possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine; the trial court suspended a 15–18 month sentence and placed him on supervised probation for 60 months.
On Feb. 8, 2013, a probation violation report alleged that a warrantless search of Hancock’s residence on Feb. 7, 2013 uncovered three rocks of cocaine, a small amount of marijuana, and drug paraphernalia.
A March 27, 2013 violation report charged multiple willful violations, including (a) misdemeanor possession of marijuana and paraphernalia and (b) PWISD cocaine arising from the Feb. 7, 2013 incident.
At the Aug. 7, 2015 revocation hearing the probation officer who authored the reports did not attend; the current officer read the reports into the record and testified that Hancock had failed to report and had been unavailable to supervision.
The trial court revoked Hancock’s probation and activated the suspended sentence; the court’s oral ruling referenced absconding, but the written judgment found violations including the Feb. 8, 2013 report and paragraphs 10–11 of the March 27, 2013 report.
On appeal Hancock argued the revocation lacked a legal basis under the Justice Reinvestment Act’s (JRA) limits on revocation; the State conceded error but the Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court legally could revoke pre-JRA probation based on alleged absconding or other violations	State: revocation was proper because the court found multiple willful violations (including absconding and new crimes)	Hancock: revocation was unlawful because JRA limits revocation to (1) new crimes, (2) absconding only for post–Dec. 1, 2011 offenders, or (3) repeat CRVs; he was a pre-JRA offender and had no prior CRVs	Court: Affirmed — revocation upheld because independent, valid finding that Hancock committed new criminal offenses (supporting §15A‑1343(b)(1)) justified revocation despite erroneous reliance on absconding in oral ruling

State v. Nolen, 228 N.C. App. 203 (explaining JRA limits on probation revocation)
State v. Murchison, 367 N.C. 461 (probation revocation standard — judge must be reasonably satisfied; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lee, 232 N.C. App. 256 (probation may be revoked on proof the court independently finds a new criminal offense; charging alone insufficient)
State v. High, 183 N.C. App. 443 (sworn violation report may constitute competent evidence to support revocation)
State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216 (appellate courts determine legal conclusions regardless of parties’ stipulations)