{
  "id": 9367316,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUBY MICHELLE MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "2001-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA00-1450",
  "first_page": "568",
  "last_page": "571",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 568"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "273 S.E.2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "711"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.C. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564272
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/302/0173-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 S.E.2d 832",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "835"
        },
        {
          "page": "836"
        },
        {
          "page": "835"
        },
        {
          "page": "835"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 169",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2531340
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175"
        },
        {
          "page": "175"
        },
        {
          "page": "175"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0169-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E.2d 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "921"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 86",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628404
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "89"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0086-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 S.E.2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "594",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575368
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "527",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "557 S.E.2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595",
          "parenthetical": "No. COA01-256"
        },
        {
          "page": "595-96"
        },
        {
          "page": "596"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9364809
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204-05",
          "parenthetical": "No. COA01-256"
        },
        {
          "page": "205"
        },
        {
          "page": "205"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/148/0203-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 391,
    "char_count": 7020,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.89498049897028e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7295017972090265
    },
    "sha256": "e4151db3748375ec25f20d53aaf2a42b39a5d098c536edaf8ec35c4d89f5346e",
    "simhash": "1:e36de046ee236b61",
    "word_count": 1151
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:25.013425+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN and BIGGS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUBY MICHELLE MOORE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Chief Judge.\nOn 3 June 1994, defendant Ruby Michelle Moore pled guilty to breaking and entering in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-54 and larceny in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-72. The same day, the Honorable Shirley L. Fulton imposed and suspended a six year term of imprisonment and placed defendant on supervised probation for five years.\nOn 3 November 1995, Probation Officer Pamela W. Gilchrist (Officer Gilchrist) signed and dated a probation violation report alleging that defendant failed to complete a drug treatment program, that she missed scheduled office appointments on two occasions, and that she had absconded from supervision. The probation violation report was found in the clerk\u2019s office files but it is not indorsed with a file stamp. An order for defendant\u2019s arrest was entered 6 August 1996. Return of service on the order for arrest was made on 9 May 2000. The five-year period of probation specified in the judgment expired on 3 June 1999.\nAt a probation revocation hearing on 6 July 2000, defendant stipulated to violating the specified conditions of probation. The Honorable Richard Boner found that the alleged violations were true and willful. Judge Boner ordered that defendant continue on probation and serve a split sentence of 120 days incarceration. Defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant contends that the trial court (1) lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the hearing and (2) that the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the violation report because the official policy of the Department of Community Corrections as stated in the Division of Community Corrections Policy Manual is to have such cases transferred to unsupervised probation and reviewed for termination.\nIn State v. Hicks, this Court wrote:\nA court\u2019s jurisdiction to review a probationer\u2019s compliance with the terms of his probation is limited by statute. . . . \u201cWhen a sentence has been suspended and defendant placed on probation on certain named conditions, the court may, at any time during the period of probation, require defendant to appear before it, inquire into alleged violations of the conditions, and, if found to be true, place the suspended sentence into effect. But the State may not do so after the expiration of the period of probation except as provided in G.S. 15A-1344(f).\u201d\n148 N.C. App. 203, 204-05, 557 S.E.2d 594, 595 (Dec. 28, 2001) (No. COA01-256) (quoting State v. Camp, 299 N.C. 524, 527, 263 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1980) (citations omitted)).\nSection 15A-1344(f) of the North Carolina General Statutes provides that once the period of probation has ended, the court may revoke probation only if:\n(1) Before the expiration of the period of probation the State has filed a written motion with the clerk indicating its intent to conduct a revocation hearing; and\n(2) The court finds that the State has made reasonable effort to notify the probationer and to conduct the hearing earlier.\nHicks, 148 N.C. App. at 205, 557 S.E.2d at 595-96.\nHere, defendant argues that the State lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant\u2019s probation because the probationary period had expired and the violation report was not file stamped, and therefore not properly filed in accordance with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f)(l). In the civil matter of Bailey v. Davis, 231 N.C. 86, 89, 55 S.E.2d 919, 921 (1949), our Supreme Court stated that \u201ca paper writing is deemed to be filed within the meaning of the law when it is delivered for that purpose to the proper officer and received by him, and it is not necessary to the filing of a paper that it shall be indorsed as having been so filed.\u201d In a criminal case, however, North Carolina requires the State to prove jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169, 175, 432 S.E.2d 832, 835 (1993). In the absence of a file stamped motion or any other evidence of the motion\u2019s timely filing as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f)(l) the trial court is without jurisdiction. On appeal, \u201c[w]hen the record shows a lack of jurisdiction in the lower court, the appropriate action on the part of the appellate court is to arrest judgment or vacate any order entered without authority.\u201d Id. at 175, 432 S.E.2d at 836 (quoting State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 176, 273 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1981)).\nThough Officer Gilchrist signed and dated the violation report on 3 November 1995, the record fails to provide evidence of the report having been filed prior to the expiration of defendant\u2019s period of probation. For a trial court to retain jurisdiction over a probationer after the probation period has expired, the plain language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f)(l) requires the State to file, before the expiration of the period of probation, a written motion with the clerk indicating the State\u2019s intent to conduct a revocation hearing. Hicks, 148 N.C. App. at 205, 557 S.E.2d at 596. The burden of perfecting the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction for a probation revocation hearing after defendant\u2019s period of probation has expired lies squarely with the State. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f) (1999); see also Petersilie, 334 N.C. at 175, 432 S.E.2d at 835.\nHere, the violation report was not file stamped and the record is without sufficient evidence to support the State\u2019s contention that defendant\u2019s violation report was filed before defendant\u2019s period of probation had expired. Consequently, we hold that the State failed to satisfy the plain language of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f) and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a hearing. See Hicks, 148 N.C. App. 203, 557 S.E.2d 594. In light of this conclusion, other arguments on appeal need not be reached. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s judgment that defendant violated terms of her probation is arrested and the order modifying the terms of her probation is vacated. See Petersilie, 334 N.C. at 175, 432 S.E.2d at 835.\nJudgment arrested and order vacated.\nJudges MARTIN and BIGGS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amar Majmundar, for the State.",
      "Public Defender Isabel Scott Day, by Assistant Public Defender Dean Paul Loven, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUBY MICHELLE MOORE\nNo. COA00-1450\n(Filed 5 February 2001)\nProbation and Parole\u2014 violation report \u2014 signed within probation term \u2014 no revocation motion during probation\nThe trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a probation revocation hearing after defendant\u2019s period of probation had expired where a probation officer signed and dated a probation violation report prior to the expiration of defendant\u2019s period of probation, but there was no evidence that the report was filed with the clerk of court during defendant\u2019s probation and that the State filed during the probation period a written motion with the clerk of court indicating its intent to conduct a revocation hearing as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(f).\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 6 July 2000 by Judge Richard Boner in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 November 2001.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Amar Majmundar, for the State.\nPublic Defender Isabel Scott Day, by Assistant Public Defender Dean Paul Loven, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0568-01",
  "first_page_order": 598,
  "last_page_order": 601
}