State v. Nolen, 228 N.C. App. 203

Defendant pleaded guilty in April 2010 to two counts of attempted trafficking in opiates; court suspended a 14–17 month sentence and placed her on 28 months supervised probation.
A June 2012 probation officer report alleged Defendant was not at her last known address during a home contact and had made her whereabouts unknown, describing this as "absconding," and separately alleged failure to satisfy monetary conditions.
At a September 2012 hearing Defendant admitted the violations and requested a CRV instead of revocation; the trial court revoked probation and activated the suspended sentence.
The violations occurred after the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011 (JRA) effective date (Dec. 1, 2011), which limited courts’ authority to revoke probation for post-JRA violations to narrow categories.
The trial court found revocation authorized under the JRA’s absconding provision, but Defendant’s underlying offenses (2010) predated the JRA absconding condition and the State did not allege a new criminal offense or prior CRVs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could revoke probation for the alleged violations occurring after Dec. 1, 2011	State relied on JRA to justify revocation, arguing absconding authorization applied	Nolen argued JRA did not authorize revocation because she did not commit a new crime, had no prior CRVs, and was not subject to the JRA absconding condition (it did not apply retroactively to 2010 offenses)	Reversed — revocation unauthorized: Defendant only violated the pre-JRA jurisdiction condition and monetary terms; court lacked statutory authority to revoke under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a)

Hale v. Afro-American Arts Int'l, Inc., 335 N.C. 231 (1993) (party waived defect in appeal process by participating without objection)
State v. Hunnicutt, 740 S.E.2d 906 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses JRA changes and limits on revocation and scope of new absconding condition)