State v. Krider, 258 N.C. App. 111

Defendant pleaded guilty (Apr 2, 2015) to possession of cocaine; received 6–17 months suspended, 12 months supervised probation, and ordered to obtain substance abuse treatment.
Probation officer visited defendant’s reported address on Dec 14, 2015; an unidentified woman told the officer defendant "didn't live there." Officer filed a violation report on Dec 21, 2015 alleging six violations, including willful absconding.
Arrest warrant issued; defendant arrested Feb 4, 2016. Officer Thomas supervised defendant until probation expired on Apr 2, 2016; hearing on violations occurred Oct 3, 2016 (after expiration).
At the hearing, officer testified defendant’s whereabouts were unknown for about two months; defendant denied violations and testified he tried to contact the officer and later maintained regular contact, completed treatment, worked seasonally, and paid arrears before expiration.
Trial court found defendant willfully absconded, revoked probation, and activated the suspended sentence; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supported willful absconding under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a)	The officer’s unannounced visit and the woman’s statement plus two months without contact show willful absconding	Defendant maintained attempts to contact officer, later had regular contact, and there was no proof of willfulness	Evidence insufficient to prove willful absconding; revocation unsupported
Whether trial court had jurisdiction to revoke probation after expiration under § 15A-1344(f)	Violation report was filed before expiration and the court found violations occurred before expiration, so jurisdiction existed	Hearing occurred after expiration; revocation requires statutory prerequisites and a qualifying violation	Because only an absconding violation would permit revocation post-expiration and that violation lacked proof, court lacked jurisdiction; judgment vacated
Whether Williams/Johnson control interpretation of absconding vs other probation violations	State argued facts supported an absconding finding distinguishable from Williams/Johnson	Defendant urged Williams/Johnson apply and foreclose revocation absent stronger proof	Majority held Williams/Johnson control and evidence here parallels Williams; absconding not shown
Appropriate remedy when insufficiency established	State would uphold revocation	Defendant sought vacatur of revocation	Court vacated the trial court’s revocation judgment for lack of jurisdiction

State v. Young, 190 N.C. App. 458 (discusses standard for probation revocation hearings)
State v. Williams, 243 N.C. App. 198 (insufficient evidence of willful absconding; revocation reversed)
State v. Johnson, 246 N.C. App. 139 (distinguishes absconding from other reporting violations; absence of tracking/electronic monitoring relevant)
State v. Moore, 240 N.C. App. 461 (§ 15A-1344(f) is jurisdictional for post-expiration revocation)
State v. High, 230 N.C. App. 330 (jurisdictional limits when statutory filing prerequisites not met)
State v. Murchison, 367 N.C. 461 (State bears burden to present competent evidence of willful probation violation)
State v. Gorman, 221 N.C. App. 330 (act beyond statutory limits is void; jurisdictional constraints)
In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373 (panel of Court of Appeals binds subsequent panels absent higher court reversal)
Mullis v. State, 233 N.C. 542 (witness demeanor may be considered by factfinder)