in the Court of Appeals 24 April 2019.
by Defendant from Judgments entered 16 April 2018 and 17
April 2018 by Judge Julia Lynn Gullett in Randolph County
Nos. 06 CRS 51515, 51521; 18 CRS 77 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney
General David L. Gore, III, for the State.
Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.
and Procedural Background
Elijah Tincher (Defendant) appeals from Judgments revoking
his probation. In addition, we grant Defendant's Petition
for Writ of Certiorari to review the trial
court's Order and Judgment holding him in Criminal
Contempt. The Record before us shows the following:
June 2006, Defendant was charged via two indictments. Under
each indictment, in cases 06 CRS 51515 and 06 CRS 51521,
Defendant was charged with Common Law Robbery and the
Statutory Aggravating Factor of committing the offense while
on pretrial release on another charge, 06 CRS 51525. On 26
February 2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to these and other
charges. At the time the Judgments in question were entered,
Defendant was serving an active sentence pursuant to the 06
CRS 51525 Judgment.
the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment and the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment, the
trial court sentenced Defendant to a minimum of 20 months and
a maximum of 24 months' imprisonment and then suspended
those sentences in favor of 36 months of supervised
probation. In the event that Defendant violated his probation
upon the expiration of the active sentence in the 06 CRS
51525 Judgment, the trial court indicated that prison
sentences in both the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment and 06 CRS 51521
Judgment were to run consecutively with one another.
Additionally, in the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment, the trial court
indicated on the Judgment that the 36-month probationary
period would begin at the expiration of the active sentence
in the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment. However, in the 06 CRS 51521
Judgment, the trial court did not indicate when the 36-month
probationary period would begin.
February 2018, Defendant's Probation Officer, Catherine
N. Russell (Officer Russell), filed two Probation-Violation
Reports alleging multiple probation violations. As a result,
on 16 April 2018, the trial court ultimately entered two
Judgments revoking Defendant's probation in 06 CRS 51515
and 06 CRS 51521. In addition, as a result of Defendant's
alleged conduct in open court following the
probation-revocation proceeding, the trial court entered a
Criminal-Contempt Order against Defendant, holding Defendant
in Criminal Contempt and ordering him to serve 30 additional
days in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult
Correction. The trial court then entered a Criminal-Contempt
Judgment requiring that the Criminal-Contempt sentence run
consecutively with Defendant's other sentences upon his
dispositive issues in this case are: (I) Whether the trial
court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke
Defendant's probation in 06 CRS 51521; and (II) Whether
the trial court erred in summarily imposing Direct Criminal
contends the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
to revoke his probation in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment because
the Probation-Violation Report was filed outside of the
probationary period set out in that case. We agree.
Standard of Review
issue of a court's jurisdiction over a matter may be
raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by a
court sua sponte." State v. Webber,
190 N.C.App. 649, 650, 660 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2008) (citation
omitted). "It is well settled that a court's
jurisdiction to review a probationer's compliance with
the terms of his probation is limited by statute."
State v. Reinhardt, 183 N.C.App. 291, 292, 644
S.E.2d 26, 27 (2007) (alteration, citation, and quotation
marks omitted). "[A]n appellate court necessarily
conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing whether a trial
court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation
revocation hearing, and thus conducts a de novo
review." State v. Satanek, 190 N.C.App. 653,
656, 660 S.E.2d 623, 625 (2008) (citation omitted).
"Under a de novo review, the court considers