State v. Kerrin, 209 N.C. App. 72

Defendant Kerrin pled guilty in 2007 to felony larceny, conspiracy, and assault on a government official, receiving concurrent prison terms but with probation for 24 months.
Probation was transferred from Wake County to New Hanover County and later violated by positive cocaine test, failure to complete community service, failure to report as scheduled, and curfew violations.
Probation revocation hearing on 1 April 2009 found violations and revoked probation, activating an 8–10 month sentence and ordering 24-month license forfeiture beginning 1 April 2009.
Forfeiture order stated the beginning date 04-01-2009 and ending date 04-01-2011, with DV license revoked for 24 months, but the documents failed to specify ‘reasonable efforts’ to comply with probation as required by statute.
Appellate review found the findings did not expressly include the required finding that Kerrin failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with probation, and noted a clerical error in the referenced probation violation reports (10/20/2008 vs 30 September 2008).
Court reversed the forfeiture order and remanded for proper findings and correction of clerical errors, and also held that forfeiture cannot exceed the original probation term set at conviction (24 months ending 15 December 2009) if the revocation occurred before that term expired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the forfeiture order include required findings on reasonable efforts?	Kerrin contends the order lacks the § 15A-1331A(b)(2) finding.	Kerrin argues the court failed to find she failed to make reasonable efforts to comply.	Remanded for additional findings; the record showed some evidence of noncompliance but not the statutorily required finding.
Is the forfeiture term permissible to exceed the original probation term?	State argues the revocation allows extending forfeiture beyond the probation term.	Kerrin contends forfeiture cannot exceed the original 24-month probation term.	Forfeiture term cannot exceed the original probation term; remand to conform to the 24-month limit.
Should the court correct clerical errors regarding which probation violation reports supported the findings?	State’s order references the 10/20/2008 violation date, which is a clerical mismatch.	Kerrin would benefit from correction to accurately reflect the violation reports used.	Remanded to correct clerical error and identify the proper violation reports.

State v. Tozzi, 84 N.C.App. 517 (1987) (probation revocation burden is to show violations reasonably satisfy court in its discretion)
State v. Delrosario, 190 N.C.App. 797 (2008) (defines conviction for probation-related forfeiture and the role of term of probation)
State v. Brunson, 152 N.C.App. 430 (2002) (entry of judgment may be in writing; open court announcements not mandatory for all findings)
State v. King, N.C.App. (2010) (remand for additional findings when record supports but lacks precise statutory findings)
State v. Jarman, 140 N.C.App. 198 (2000) (clerical errors in judgments may require remand to correct the record)