State v. Caldwell

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA13-272 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 3 December 2013 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Wilkes County Nos. 12 CRS 686 12 CRS 687 12 CRS 688 12 CRS 689 v. BRADLEY CALDWELL, JR., Defendant. Appeal 2012 by Court. by Judge defendant R. Stuart from judgments Albright in entered Wilkes 25 September County Superior Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 October 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Kelly, for the State. Gerding Blass, appellant. PLLC, by Danielle Blass, for defendant- from judgments GEER, Judge. Defendant Bradley Caldwell, Jr. appeals entered upon revocation of his probation. court lacked the statutory authority to Because the trial revoke defendant's probation in response to the violations found, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. -2In December 2010, defendant pled guilty in Catawba County to possession of a stolen motor vehicle and attempted breaking or entering. He received consecutive suspended sentences of five to six months imprisonment and was placed on supervised probation for 30 months. On 13 September 2011, defendant pled guilty in Burke County to possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver a Schedule VI controlled substance, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance, and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. The Burke County Superior Court placed defendant on supervised probation for 30 months and imposed consecutive suspended sentences of eight to 10 months for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and six to eight months for the consolidated drug offenses. Violation reports filed in Wilkes County on 30 July 2012 charged defendant with violating the conditions of probation associated with both his Catawba and Burke County convictions. Among other things, the reports alleged that defendant had violated the condition under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(2) (2011) that he "[r]emain within the jurisdiction of the Court unless granted written permission to leave by the Court or the probation officer . . . ." Specifically, the reports alleged that "on or about July 29, 2012, this offender left his last -3known place of residence at 343 Blue Heron Lane Wilkesboro, NC . . . [and] has not made his whereabouts known to his probation officer, therefore absconding supervision." reports filed in the two Catawba County Additionally, the cases alleged that defendant had committed a new criminal offense. At the violation hearing held 25 September 2012, the State elected not to proceed on the allegation that defendant had committed offense. a new criminal Defendant admitted the remainder of the alleged violations and acknowledged that he committed the violations willfully, but he asked to be continued on probation. Noting that defendant had previously violated his probation committed and his Burke County offenses while on probation from Catawba County, the Wilkes County Superior Court revoked defendant's suspended sentences, probation running and them activated consecutively. defendant's Defendant timely appealed to this Court. _________________________ Defendant first contends the Wilkes County Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke his probation under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a) (2011). argues that there was insufficient Specifically, defendant evidence that the Wilkes County Superior Court had the authority to revoke probation that -4had been imposed in Catawba and Burke Counties. We find no merit to this claim. In pertinent part, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a) provides: [P]robation may be . . . revoked by any judge entitled to sit in the court which imposed probation and who is resident or presiding in the . . . superior court district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1, as the case may be, where the sentence of probation was imposed, where the probationer violates probation, or where the probationer resides. In the present case, defendant admitted the allegation that he "LEFT HIS LAST KNOWN PLACE OF RESIDENCE AT 343 BLUE HERON LANE WILKESBORO, NC" without informing his probation officer of his whereabouts. Moreover, the violation reports listed defendant's address as 343 Blue Heron Lane in Wilkes County. See State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 246, 154 S.E.2d 53, 58 (1967) (deeming a verified violation report to be competent evidence at a revocation hearing). Therefore, because the record contains evidence that defendant resided in Wilkes County, we hold that the Wilkes County Superior Court had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a). Defendant next contends that, in light of the statutory amendments ("JRA"), enacted see 2011 by N.C. the Justice Sess. Laws Reinvestment Act ch. 4 192, § of 2011 (effective -5December 1, probation. 2011), the trial court erred in revoking his We agree. The JRA amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a) to provide that the court "may only revoke probation" if the probationer commits a new crime, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1343(b)(1); "abscond[s]" supervision, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a); or violates any condition of probation after serving two prior periods of confinement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(d2). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a). However, the condition to "[n]ot abscond," under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a), only applies "to offenses committed on or after [1 December 2011]." 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 412, § 2.5 (effective December 1, 2011). Similarly, the limited revoking authority of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A 1344(a) only "appl[ies] to probation violations occurring on or after [1 December 2011]." 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 412, § 2.5. Thus, in order for probation to be revoked in response to a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a), both the offense and violation must occur on or after 1 December 2011. the probation See State v. Hunnicutt, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 740 S.E.2d 906, 911 (2013) ("The effective date clause was later amended, however, to make the new committed absconding on or condition after 1 applicable December 2011, only to while the offenses limited -6revoking authority remained effective for probation violations occurring on or after 1 December 2011." (citing 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 412, § 2.5)). Here, the State abandoned the allegation that defendant had committed a new crime in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1343(b)(1). Additionally, the violation reports show that defendant has not served two prior periods of confinement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(d2). Thus, the trial court did not have the authority to revoke defendant's probation under two of the three permissible conditions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A1344(a). As for the remaining condition under which defendant's probation could be revoked, a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a), it is only applicable if both the original offenses and the probation violations occurred on or after 1 December 2011. at 911. See Hunnicutt, ___ N.C. App. at ___, 740 S.E.2d While defendant's probation violations occurred after 1 December 2011, defendant's offenses occurred before 1 December 2011. Because defendant's offenses occurred before 1 December 2011, the condition to "[n]ot abscond," under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a) authority under does N.C. not apply, Gen. and Stat. the § trial court 15A-1344(a) to had no revoke probation for a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(3a). -7Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred when it revoked defendant's probation "for the willful violation of the condition(s) that [defendant] not commit any criminal offense, G.S. 15A-1343(b)(1), 1343(b)(3a)[.]" judgments and or abscond Accordingly, remand for from we further this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Judges ERVIN and DILLON concur. Report per Rule 30(e). supervision, reverse the proceedings G.S. trial 15A- court's consistent with

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.