{
  "id": 4177203,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASON BRENT MAUCK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mauck",
  "decision_date": "2010-06-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA09-1042",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "587",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. App. 583"
    }
  ],
  "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": "254 S.E.2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "242"
        },
        {
          "page": "242"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548266
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/41/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "689 S.E.2d 223",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "226",
          "parenthetical": "citation and quotation marks omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "689 S.E.2d 590",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 8893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.74,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.596500624065284e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3507774005357069
    },
    "sha256": "448bdf9512d9fccd31b2b0ff9d54fd864751b2b0195e5c96c823faf2a7ec9047",
    "simhash": "1:e45b1b595ebd6487",
    "word_count": 1409
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:54.150336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRYANT and ELMORE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASON BRENT MAUCK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STROUD, Judge.\nDefendant appeals judgments revoking his probation. Defendant argues the trial court did not comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a). As we conclude the trial court complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a), we affirm.\nI. Background\nOn or about 20 October 2003, in Haywood County, defendant pled guilty to, inter alia, selling or delivering a sch\u00e9dule two controlled substance and possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine (\u201cdrug convictions\u201d). The file number on defendant\u2019s judgment was 03CRS3703. Defendant received a suspended sentence requiring supervised probation for 36 months for both drug convictions. On 5 April 2007, the terms of defendant\u2019s probation regarding his drug convictions in file number 03CRS3703 were modified in Buncombe County. The Buncombe County court, in file number 07CRS2081, entered an order which required defendant to \u201cobtain assessment at TASC[,]\u201d \u201c[s]erve an active term of 3 days ... in the custody of\u2019 the Buncombe County Sheriff, and \u201creport in a sober condition to begin serving his/her term on\u201d 20 April 2007.\nOn or about 21 May 2007, defendant pled guilty in Buncombe County to possessing stolen goods or property (\u201ctheft conviction\u201d). Defendant received a suspended sentence and was placed on supervised probation for 12 months.\nOn or about 2 April 2009, in Buncombe County, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked on file number 07CRS2081, and he was ordered to an active sentence of 15 to 18 months for his drug convictions. Also on or about 2 April 2009, in Buncombe County, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked for his theft conviction, and he was sentenced to an active term of 6 to 8 months imprisonment. Defendant appeals the two orders revoking his probation.\nII. Probation Revocation\nDefendant contends that\nthe trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke Mr. Mauck\u2019s probation in case 07 CRS 2081 because there was insufficient evidence that the case had been transferred to Buncombe County, that Mr. Mauck violated his probation in Buncombe County or that Mr. Mauck resided in Buncombe County.\n(Original in all caps.)\n\u201cWhether a trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a .question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal.\u201d McKoy v. McKoy, \u2014 N.C. App. -, -, 689 S.E.2d 590, 592 (2010) (citation omitted). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a) provides in pertinent part:\nprobation may be reduced, terminated, continued, extended, modified, or revoked by any judge entitled to sit in the court which imposed probation and who is resident or presiding in the district court district as defined in G.S. 7A-133 or superior court district or set of districts as defined in G.S. 7A-41.1, as the case may be, where the sentence\u2019 of probation was imposed, where the probationer violates probation, or where the probationer resides.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a) (2008). Defendant argues that Haywood County was the trial court where the sentence of probation was imposed, so for the Buncombe County trial court to have jurisdiction, the State must have proven that defendant\u2019s case was transferred to Buncombe County, defendant violated his probation in Buncombe County or that defendant resided in Buncombe County at the time of the violation. Defendant further contends that because there was insufficient evidence of the transfer of probation to Buncombe County, where the violation occurred, and where defendant resided, the trial court in Buncombe County did not have jurisdiction to revoke his probation under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a).\nA. Drug Convictions\nThough defendant was originally sentenced and probation was imposed for his drug convictions in Haywood County, Buncombe County modified the terms of the original Haywood County probation order by entering its own order with a new file number approximately two years before the revocation took place. Defendant\u2019s modified probation order was entered on 5 April 2007, in Buncombe County in file number 07CRS2081, and defendant was then supervised by Buncombe County\u2019s probation office pursuant to that order. Defendant\u2019s probation was revoked on or about 2 April 2009 in Buncombe County in file number 07CRS2081. Thus, defendant\u2019s probation revocation was entered \u201cwhere the sentence of probation was imposedf.]\u201d Id. Though defendant was originally convicted and probation was first imposed in Haywood County, the probation order which he violated was imposed in Buncombe County in 2007 through the modification of his original order. See id.\nThus, defendant\u2019s challenge to the trial court\u2019s subject matter jurisdiction is really based upon the 2007 Buncombe County order. However, defendant did not appeal from the 2007 order modifying his probation. While \u201c[s]ubject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, and the issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal[,]\u201d In re S.T.P., - N.C. App. -, -, 689 S.E.2d 223, 226 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted), when filing a notice of appeal, as defendant did here, the notice \u201cshall designate the judgment or order from which an appeal is taken[.]\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 4(b). Without a proper notice of appeal, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear a case. See, e.g., State v. Morris, 41 N.C. App. 164, 166, 254 S.E.2d 241, 242 (\u201cNotice of Appeal is required in order to give this Court jurisdiction to hear and decide a case.\u201d (citations omitted)). Therefore, this Court cannot consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction as to defendant\u2019s 2007 order modifying probation because defendant did not appeal from it. In addition, the record on appeal does not include information which would be necessary for us to determine if there was any impropriety in the transfer of the defendant\u2019s case from Haywood County to Buncombe County prior to entry of the modification order in 2007.\nIn conclusion, the trial court in Buncombe County had jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a) to revoke probation where defendant\u2019s modified probation order was entered in Buncombe County in 2007. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a). Whether Buncombe County properly had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the 2007 order modifying defendant\u2019s probation is a question outside the scope of review of this Court, as defendant has not appealed from that order. See, e.g., Morris at 166, 254 S.E.2d at 242. This argument is overruled.\nB. Theft Conviction\nOn or about 21 May 2007, defendant\u2019s theft conviction, for which he also received probation, was entered in Buncombe County. Also, on or about 2 April 2009 in Buncombe County, defendant\u2019s probation was revoked as to his theft conviction. We can discern no cognizable argument regarding subject matter jurisdiction as to the revocation of defendant\u2019s probation for his theft conviction as it was originally entered in Buncombe County and was revoked in the same court. The trial court has again complied with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a). See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a). This argument is without merit.\nIII. Conclusion\nWe conclude that the trial court properly revoked defendant\u2019s probation pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1344(a), and thus we affirm.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges BRYANT and ELMORE concur.\n. There is no documentation in the record addressing the transfer of defendant\u2019s case from Haywood County to Buncombe County; however, defendant has not appealed from the first Buncombe County order modifying his probation in 2007 and has not made any assignments of error or argument regarding entry of the first Buncombe County order modifying his probation.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STROUD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Catherine F. Jordan, for the State.",
      "Lynn Norton-Ramirez, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASON BRENT MAUCK, Defendant\nNo. COA09-1042\n(Filed 15 June 2010)\n1. Probation and Parole\u2014 revocation \u2014 subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 transfer between counties\nThe trial court in Buncombe County had jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1344(a) to revoke defendant\u2019s probation where the original probation was entered in Haywood County but was later modified in Buncombe County. Defendant did not appeal from the modification of the order in Buncombe County, so that the notice of appeal required for jurisdiction was not proper, and the record did not include information which would be necessary for the Court of Appeals to determine if there was any impropriety in the transfer of the defendant\u2019s case from Haywood County to Buncombe County.\n2. Probation and Parole\u2014 revocation \u2014 subject matter jurisdiction \u2014 same county as initial order\nBuncombe County had subject matter jurisdiction for revoking defendant\u2019s probation where the initial probation was entered in Buncombe County.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered on or about 2 April 200 by Judge C. Philip Ginn in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January 2010.\nAttorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Assistant Attorney General Catherine F. Jordan, for the State.\nLynn Norton-Ramirez, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 611
}