Opinion
No. COA15-1256
07-05-2016
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEREK TREMAYNE MCEACHIN
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Staci T. Meyer, for the State. Winifred H. Dillon, for defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. Johnston County, No. 12 CRS 54812 Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 1 June 2015 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Johnston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 June 2016. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Staci T. Meyer, for the State. Winifred H. Dillon, for defendant. DIETZ, Judge.
Defendant Derek Tremayne McEachin appeals the revocation of his probation and activation of his sentence for felony possession of cocaine. The trial court found that McEachin willfully violated three conditions of his probation, but only one of those three—absconding—was grounds for revocation in this case. On the probation revocation form, the trial court did not check the box indicating that the court believed the absconding violation, standing alone, warranted revocation. Thus, McEachin argues that the trial court's order should be vacated and his case remanded because the trial court might have improperly relied on the other violations in its decision to revoke his probation.
We disagree. McEachin admitted at the revocation hearing that he absconded, and the trial court stated on the record that it revoked his probation because he absconded. McEachin has not shown that the trial court relied on any inappropriate factors in its decision to revoke his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
On 16 November 2012, Defendant Derek Tremayne McEachin pleaded guilty to felony possession of cocaine. The trial court suspended McEachin's sentence of 25 to 42 months of imprisonment and placed him on supervised probation for 36 months.
On 3 July 2013, the State filed a probation violation report alleging that McEachin violated the conditions of his probation. The report alleged that McEachin had tested positive for marijuana and cocaine, had violated his curfew, and had failed to pay his court debt and probation supervision fees. The trial court ultimately found McEachin in violation of his probation and ordered him to serve four days in jail, to complete a drug abuse assessment, and not to miss any future office visits with his probation officer.
On 12 August 2014, the State filed a new probation violation report. This report alleged that McEachin had absconded from supervision, had tested positive for marijuana, and had failed to report to his probation officer as required.
On 1 June 2015, the trial court held a probation violation hearing in Johnston County Superior Court. McEachin admitted the allegations contained in the probation violation report. The trial court found that McEachin willfully violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation, and activated his sentence. McEachin filed a defective notice of appeal on 2 June 2015.
On 19 January 2016, McEachin filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. McEachin conceded that his notice of appeal failed to specify the court to which appeal was taken and that he did not sufficiently identify the judgment from which appeal was taken. McEachin also failed to serve his notice of appeal on the State. In our discretion pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 21(a), we allow McEachin's petition so that we may review his appeal on the merits.
Analysis
McEachin argues that the trial court erred by revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentence. As explained below, we hold that the trial court properly revoked McEachin's probation.
Under the Justice Reinvestment Act, the trial court may revoke a defendant's probation if the defendant absconds from supervision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1344(a). McEachin admitted that he absconded and he does not dispute that the trial court relied on that admission to revoke his probation. But McEachin contends that the trial court's revocation order also found that McEachin violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for marijuana and failing to report. These other two violations would not permit revocation in this case.
The court's revocation order used a form that includes a checkbox stating "[e]ach violation is, in and of itself, a sufficient basis upon which this [c]ourt should revoke probation and activate the suspended sentence." The trial court did not check that box. Thus, McEachin argues that the trial court must have improperly relied on the other findings in its decision to revoke his probation.
We disagree. At the hearing, the trial court indicated that it was revoking McEachin's probation because he absconded. That was the only violation discussed at the hearing, and the court specifically referred to that violation as the basis for its decision to revoke: "Based on his admission, I will find he's in willful violation of the terms and conditions of probation. I do note that he is charged with absconding. Probation is revoked, suspended sentence is activated." These statements by the trial court at the hearing demonstrate that the court chose to revoke his probation because he absconded and not based on other, improper grounds. Moreover, McEachin has not directed the Court to any portion of the record or hearing transcripts indicating that the trial court improperly relied on the other violations in its decision to revoke his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).