{
  "id": 9249754,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANE SEEK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Seek",
  "decision_date": "2002-08-06",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-600",
  "first_page": "237",
  "last_page": "239",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 237"
    }
  ],
  "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": "373 S.E.2d 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "688"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526482
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "113"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4816,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.493294997279142e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3438459153410102
    },
    "sha256": "55650e0704aa7c5b1534a83505ca18c2f6d35fa47f3fa557efe6fe3be08d99af",
    "simhash": "1:e86ef510bde695e0",
    "word_count": 749
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:40:03.287783+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and TYSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANE SEEK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of taking indecent liberties with a minor on 13 June 2000, in Superior Court, Harnett County. He was sentenced to twenty-four months of probation with a special condition that he not reside in any household with a minor child. The trial court modified this special condition by adding the words \u201cother than his own[,]\u201d and also added the additional special condition: \u201cThe defendant may reside with his own child providing he immediately enroll in and successfully complete an approved parenting] class.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s probation case was transferred to Cumberland County where defendant resided. However, the Cumberland County probation office refused to accept the case because it believed the special condition of probation was in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1343(b2)(4). The case was sent back to Harnett County, where the Harnett County trial court modified the probation order on 26 June 2000 by striking the words \u201cother than his own[.]\u201d After this modification, Cumberland County accepted the transfer of the case. Defendant did not receive written notice of this modification, although Paul Hatch (Hatch), a Cumberland County probation officer, testified he told defendant orally of the modification.\nHatch filed a probation violation report stating defendant had remained overnight in the same residence as defendant\u2019s child on two occasions in September 2000, in violation of the modified probation order entered 26 June 2000. The court found on 27 November 2000 that defendant wilfully violated his probation and ordered, as an additional condition of defendant\u2019s probation, that he abide by the conditions of the sex offender control program. Defendant appeals from this order.\nDefendant first argues the court erred in not finding the ex parte probation modification entered on 26 June 2000 to be invalid. Defendant contends he did not receive adequate notice of the modification because he never received written notice. We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1343(c) (1999) states:\nStatement of Conditions. \u2014 A defendant released on supervised probation must be given a written statement explicitly setting forth the conditions on which he is being released. If any modification of the terms of that probation is subsequently made, he must be given a written statement setting forth the modifications.\nDefendant did not receive any written notification. The \u201cprovision requiring written notice of any modifications made in the terms of probation is mandatory, and we have no authority to rule otherwise.\u201d State v. Suggs, 92 N.C. App. 112, 113, 373 S.E.2d 687, 688 (1988). Hatch did orally inform defendant of the modification; however, oral notice is not \u201ca satisfactory substitute for the written statement that the statute requires[.]\u201d Id.\nThe State argues the lack of written notice is moot because the original order\u2019s condition of probation required defendant to complete a parenting class before he could stay in a residence with his own child. The State argues that if the modified order was invalid, the original order was valid, and defendant violated those conditions by not completing the parenting class. However, the allegations against defendant and the evidence presented at trial do not mention defendant either completing or failing to complete any parenting class. Therefore, we reverse defendant\u2019s probation violation conviction. As we reverse defendant\u2019s conviction, we need not reach the constitutional issues defendant raises in his final assignment of error.\nReversed.\nJudges EAGLES and TYSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McGEE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General J. Philip Allen, for the State.",
      "Matthew Cockman for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SHANE SEEK\nNo. COA01-600\n(Filed 6 August 2002)\nProbation and Parole\u2014 ex parte probation modification \u2014 written notice requirement\nThe trial court erred in an indecent liberties with a minor case by finding an ex parte probation modification entered on 26 June 2000 was valid even though defendant\u2019s probation officer gave defendant oral notice of the modification, because: (1) defendant did not receive adequate notice of the modification since he never received written notice as required by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1343(c); and (2) contrary to the State\u2019s assertion, the lack of written notice is not moot based on the original order\u2019s condition of probation requiring defendant to complete a parenting class before he could stay in a residence with his own child since the allegations against defendant and the evidence presented at trial do not mention defendant either completing or failing to complete any parenting class.\nAppeal by defendant from order dated 27 November 2000 by Judge Gregory A. Weeks in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 May 2002.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General J. Philip Allen, for the State.\nMatthew Cockman for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0237-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 267
}