{
  "id": 8301845,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEXTER LEON SURRATT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Surratt",
  "decision_date": "2006-05-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-1156",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "555",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "177 N.C. App. 551"
    }
  ],
  "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": "263 S.E.2d 592",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "595"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "595"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "528"
        },
        {
          "page": "528"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0524-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 8441,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.052340155850942e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37446024845463965
    },
    "sha256": "e07ba8f2f876c786f2bd5279342ab372a5ee842fab3716f5e87ea3142fcbbfdf",
    "simhash": "1:a9fea16417d40eea",
    "word_count": 1345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:29.259677+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GEER and JACKSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEXTER LEON SURRATT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nDexter Leon Surratt (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from judgment entered finding him to be in violation of his probation and activating a three year sentence imposed in 1994. We reverse.\nI. Background\nOn 14 June 1994, defendant received a suspended sentence of three years in the custody of the Department of Correction following a conviction of indecent liberties with a minor. Defendant\u2019s sentence was suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation for sixty months. This probation period was to begin at the expiration of his active sentence in companion case 93 CRS 12023.\nOn 24 September 1995, defendant was released from the Department of Corrections after he completed his sentence in 93 CRS 12023. On this date, defendant began to serve the five years term of probation concurrently with a ten year active sentence in a separate case, 94 CRS 011654. He was released on parole on 24 January 1999 in the later case.\nOn 11 February 1999, without allegations of probation violations, the trial court modified defendant\u2019s probation to waive probation supervision fees of twenty dollars per month. Defendant acknowledged receipt of this modification of the conditions of his probation.\nOn 22 March 2001, without allegations of probation violations, the trial court modified defendant\u2019s probation to reinstate payment of probation supervision fees. Defendant did not sign this order to acknowledge receipt of modifications of the conditions of his probation. On 13 March 2003, the trial court purportedly modified the conditions of defendant\u2019s probation to extend probation for twelve months from 23 January 2004 to 23 January 2005, to undergo sex offender treatment, and to undergo house arrest for ninety days. Defendant signed this order to acknowledge receipt of the conditions of probation.\nOn 1 November 2004, an order for arrest for felony probation violation was served on defendant. The order alleged defendant was: (1) suspended from his sex offender treatment program; and (2) $350.00 in arrears in his probation supervision fees.\nOn 6 January 2005, the trial court found defendant had been suspended from his sex offender treatment program and extended his probation with additional conditions for another eleven months and nine days from 22 January 2005 until 31 December 2005. The trial court ordered defendant to sign a new contract for his sex offender treatment program and ordered defendant not be unsupervised in the presence of anyone under the age of eighteen years.\nOn 1 February 2005, an order for arrest for felony probation violation was served on defendant. The order alleged defendant: (1) missed two curfew checks; (2) was $470.00 in arrears in his probation supervision fees; and (3) had been suspended from his sex offender treatment program on 1 February 2005 and had been in the unsupervised presence of his sister, who was under eighteen years of age.\nOn 7 April 2005, the trial court found defendant had violated all three allegations contained in the violation report. The trial court revoked defendant\u2019s probation and activated his three year sentence imposed and suspended in 1994. Defendant appeals.\nII. Issues\nDefendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify his probation.\nIII. Probation Supervision\nDefendant contends, \u201cthe hearing court lacked jurisdiction to enter a revocation judgment against [defendant].\u201d Defendant argues his five years term of probation began on 24 September 1995 and ended on [23] September 2000, and \u201call orders entered in this matter after said date are a nullity and void ab initio.\u201d We agree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1346 (2005) provides that \u201ca period of probation commences on the day it is imposed and runs concurrently with any other period of probation, parole, or imprisonment to which the defendant is subject during that period.\u201d\nOn 24 September 1995, defendant began to serve a ten year sentence in an unrelated and separate case (94 CRS 011654). On 24 September 1995, defendant also began to serve his probationary sentence. He was released on parole on the later charge on 24 January 1999. Defendant\u2019s five year probationary period ended 23 September 2000.\nThe trial court, without allegations of probation violations, modified defendant\u2019s probation to waive probation supervision fees on 11 February 1999. Defendant signed to acknowledge receipt of this modification of the conditions of his probation.\nOn 18 March 2003, defendant consented to an one year extension of his probation \u201cin lieu of a formal violation due to being suspended from the Sexual Abuse Intervention Program.\u201d Defendant\u2019s probationary period was purportedly extended from 23 January 2004 to 23 January 2005. The State contends, \u201c[a] finding of a violation of probation conditions would have been grounds for revocation of probation and activation of his original three year sentence.\u201d\nOn 6 June 2005, the trial court found defendant had violated a valid condition of his probation when he refused to sign the new sexual offense treatment program contract. The trial court extended his probationary period an additional eleven months to 31 December 2005.\nOn 7 April 2005, the trial court held defendant had violated all three allegations of the 1 February 2005 violation report including: (1) missing two curfew checks; (2) being $470.00 in arrears in his probation supervision fees; and (3) being suspended from his sex offender treatment program on 1 February 2005 and being in the unsupervised presence of his sister, who was under eighteen years of age.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(f) (2005) provides:\n(f) Revocation after Period of Probation. \u2014 The court may revoke probation after the expiration of the period of probation 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.\nIn State v. Camp, our Supreme Court held a trial court that lacked jurisdiction over the defendant had no power to revoke the defendant\u2019s probation. 299 N.C. 524, 528, 263 S.E.2d 592, 595 (1980). The \"Court stated \u201cprobation can be revoked and the probationer made to serve a period of active imprisonment even after the period of probation has expired if a violation occurred during the period and if the court was unable to bring the petitioner before it in order to revoke at that time.\" Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).\nHere, defendant\u2019s term of probation expired on 23 September 2000. Both extensions of defendant\u2019s probationary period occurred long after the five years term of probation had expired without allegations of defendant\u2019s violation prior to the expiration. Id. Defendant agreed to the waiver of his probationary fees within the term of probation on 11 February 1999. The trial court had jurisdiction over defendant at that time. No violations of probation were alleged or pending at the time defendant\u2019s probation expired. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant\u2019s probation and activate his sentence in February 2005. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(f).\nIV. Conclusion\nDefendant\u2019s five years term of probation expired on 23 September 2000. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate defendant\u2019s probation supervision fees or to make further modifications to his probation judgment after that date. Camp, 299 N.C. at 528, 263 S.E.2d at 595. The trial court\u2019s judgment is reversed.\nReversed.\nJudges GEER and JACKSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "TYSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann B. Wall, for the State.",
      "Hall & Hall Attorneys at Law, P.C., by Susan R Hall, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEXTER LEON SURRATT\nNo. COA05-1156\n(Filed 16 May 2006)\nProbation and Parole\u2014 modifications after expiration of original term \u2014 rto pending violation allegations \u2014 no jurisdiction\nThe trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant\u2019s probation on 7 April 2005 where the five year term of probation had begun on 24 September 1995 and had expired on 23 September 2000 without pending allegations of violations. The court lacked jurisdiction to modify the probation judgment (as it did several times) after that date.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 7 April 2005 by Judge James W. Morgan in Catawba County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 April 2006.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Ann B. Wall, for the State.\nHall & Hall Attorneys at Law, P.C., by Susan R Hall, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 585,
  "last_page_order": 589
}