State v. Pennell, 367 N.C. 466

William Pennell pleaded guilty (Dec. 2, 2010) to multiple felonies; sentences were suspended and he was placed on 36 months supervised probation.
Multiple probation violation reports led the trial court to modify, then later revoke and activate some sentences (Oct. 13, 2011; June 5, 2012).
On appeal from the June 5, 2012 revocation, Court of Appeals (1) corrected a clerical error as to which count was activated and (2) held that a challenge to the underlying indictment’s facial validity could be raised in the revocation appeal and arrested revocation as to one larceny count.
The State petitioned for discretionary review to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which granted review on the jurisdictional question.
The Supreme Court held that a collateral attack on the original conviction’s validity via an appeal from probation revocation is impermissible; defendant must use Rule 15A-1415(b) or habeas corpus instead.

Issue	State's Argument	Pennell's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant may challenge the facial validity of the underlying indictment (jurisdiction of original conviction) in an appeal from revocation of probation	Such a challenge is an impermissible collateral attack on the original judgment; appeal from revocation is not a proper vehicle	The indictment was facially defective so original judgment was void; jurisdictional defects may be raised at any time, including in a revocation appeal	No. A jurisdictional attack on the original conviction cannot be raised for the first time in an appeal from revocation; appeal was improper on that ground
Proper procedure to challenge an allegedly defective original indictment after sentence activation	Defendant should pursue post-conviction remedies rather than revocation appeal	Revocation appeal is a timely forum because sentence activation enforces the original judgment	Defendant must use N.C.G.S. § 15A-1415(b) motion for appropriate relief or a habeas corpus petition; revocation appeal is not the correct procedure

State v. Ray, 212 N.C. 748, 194 S.E. 472 (discussed limits of attacking an indictment not underlying the conviction)
State v. Absher, 329 N.C. 264, 404 S.E.2d 848 (jurisdictional challenges are reviewable on appeal only when the case is properly before appellate courts)
State v. Holmes, 361 N.C. 410, 646 S.E.2d 353 (holding that defects in original sentence generally must be appealed when originally entered; cannot be raised first on revocation)
State v. Noles, 12 N.C. App. 676, 184 S.E.2d 409 (appeal from revocation cannot collaterally attack validity of original judgment)
State v. Rush, 158 N.C. App. 738, 582 S.E.2d 37 (failure to appeal original judgment waives challenges; collateral attack via revocation appeal is improper)
State v. Neeley, 307 N.C. 247, 297 S.E.2d 389 (limited exception allowing post-activation challenge to an original uncounseled conviction for right-to-counsel claims)