State v. ReganÂ
253 N.C. App. 351
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wanda Lee Regan pled guilty in Harnett County (09 CRS 054650) to forging in 2010; sentence suspended and 24 months supervised probation assigned to Harnett County Probation Office.
- In Sampson County (09 CRS 052339 / later cited as 11 CRS 00906) Regan pled guilty to attempted first-degree burglary in 2010; sentence suspended and 24 months supervised probation was also supervised by the Harnett County Probation Office.
- In April 2011 Regan failed to report for a scheduled appointment with her Harnett County probation officer and informed the officer by phone that she had left North Carolina; Harnett County issued a warrant and filed probation violation reports (dated 25 April 2011) for both files.
- Regan avoided supervision for over four years, surrendered in Texas in late 2015, and was extradited to North Carolina; probation-violation hearings were held 27 January 2016 in Harnett County Superior Court.
- The trial court found Regan in willful violation of probation for both cases, revoked probation, and activated the suspended sentences; Regan appealed claiming lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in Harnett County (for the Sampson-originating case) and insufficient findings of good cause for post-expiration revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Regan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harnett County Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke probation in the Sampson-originating file | Harnett County had jurisdiction because Regan resided in Harnett County and violated probation there (failed to report; left the state); supervision was handled by Harnett County officers | Trial court lacked jurisdiction over the Sampson-originating case because there is no record of a formal transfer from Sampson County to Harnett County | Court held Harnett County had jurisdiction: evidence supported inference Regan resided in and violated probation in Harnett County, so jurisdiction proper |
| Whether the trial court failed to make required findings of good cause to revoke probation after the probation period expired | The court made findings (from bench and in judgments referencing violation reports) and there was competent evidence of violations occurring prior to expiration | The court erred by not making adequate written/oral findings of good cause as required for post-expiration revocation | Court held no reversible error: statutory standard satisfied; trial court found willful violations and stated good cause to revoke |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCoy, 171 N.C. App. 636 (discretion to consider appeal by certiorari when notice defective)
- State v. Satanek, 190 N.C. App. 653 (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- McKoy v. McKoy, 202 N.C. App. 509 (standard of review for subject-matter jurisdiction; review de novo)
- Sherwood v. Sherwood, 29 N.C. App. 112 (presumption that court found facts to support judgment when not required to make written findings)
- State v. Young, 190 N.C. App. 458 (standard for revocation: judge’s finding supported by competent evidence and not overturned absent manifest abuse of discretion)
- State v. Love, 156 N.C. App. 309 (distinguishing statute requiring specific findings for deviations under a different statutory scheme)