"[A] defendant absconds when he willfully makes his whereabouts unknown to his probation officer, and the probation officer is unable to contact the defendant." State v. Melton, 258 N.C.App. 134, 138, 811 S.E.2d 678, 681 (2018).
See id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___. Moreover, in State v. Melton, 258 N.C. App. 134, 811 S.E.2d 678 (2018), this Court held that in making a finding of absconding and reviewing such a finding by a trial court, courts are constrained to consider evidence to the dates in the violation report alleging when the absconding occurred. Id. at 137, 811 S.E.2d at 681.
Cognizant of this burden, we conclude the State presented sufficient competent evidence by which the trial court could find that Defendant absconded by willfully avoiding supervision or willfully making his whereabouts unknown to his probation officer in violation of Section 15A-1343(b)(3a). Relying on State v. Williams , 243 N.C. App. 198, 776 S.E.2d 741 (2015), and State v. Melton , 258 N.C. App. 134, 811 S.E.2d 678 (2018), our dissenting colleague contends that the State has failed to present sufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant absconded in violation of Section 15A-1343(b)(3a). The dissent's reliance on these cases is misplaced.
State v. Trent, 254 N.C. App. 809, 812-13, 803 S.E.2d 224, 227 (2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 370 N.C. 576, 809 S.E.2d 599 (2018). ΒΆ 12 "We review a trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's probation for abuse of discretion." State v. Melton, 258 N.C. App. 134, 136, 811 S.E.2d 678, 680 (2018). "A trial court abuses its discretion when a ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision."
Accordingly, this Courtβs jurisprudence, recognizing the purpose of the JRA, has placed a heightened burden on the State to establish not only that a probation officer was unable to locate or contact a defendant placed on supervised probation, but that such inability was due to the willful efforts of the defendant. See, e.g., State v. Melton , βββ N.C. App. ββββ, 811 S.E.2d 678 (2018) ; State v. Krider , βββ N.C. App. ββββ, 810 S.E.2d 828 (2018). In Melton , we held the defendant did not abscond within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. Β§ 15A-1343(b)(3a) even though she was not present at her approved residence and failed to report to her probation officer, because there was evidence the defendant was unaware of the officerβs attempts to contact her. βββ N.C. App. at ββββ, 811 S.E.2d at 682.
"When the State presents βcompetent evidence establishing a defendant's failure to comply with the terms of probation, the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate through competent evidence an inability to comply with the terms.β " State v. Melton , βββ N.C. App. ββββ, ββββ, 811 S.E.2d 678, 680 (2018) (quoting State v. Talbert , 221 N.C. App. 650, 652, 727 S.E.2d 908, 910-11 (2012) ). We review a trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's probation for an abuse of discretion.
A trial court abuses its discretion when a ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." State v. Melton , 258 N.C. App. 134, 136, 811 S.E.2d 678, 680 (2018) (internal marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, a violation of a condition of probation "need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but only to the trial judge's reasonable satisfaction in the exercise of his sound discretion.
ΒΆ 11 The relevant date range to consider for absconding is that alleged in the violation report. See State v. Melton, 258 N.C.App. 134, 139, 811 S.E.2d 678, 682 (2018) (considering only the evidence relevant to the time period alleged in the violation report). Here, the relevant six-day period during which Defendant purportedly absconded is 28 January 2021, the date of Officer Neilsen's unsuccessful, unscheduled visit, to 3 February 2021, the date the violation report was filed.
Indeed, this Court has previously held that lack of such notice to the probationer may preclude a showing of willfulness when viewed in light of the other record evidence. State v. Krider, 258 N.C.App. 111, 11516, 810 S.E.2d 828, 830-31 (2018); State v. Melton, 258 N.C.App. 134, 139-40, 811 S.E.2d 678, 682-83 (2018). Similarly, we have held that the State adequately failed to prove willfulness on facts that showed a probation officer was able to maintain telephone contact with the defendant.
In contending the evidence in this case was insufficient to support the trial court's determination Defendant willfully absconded supervision, Defendant analogizes the facts of this case to those of State v. Melton, 258 N.C.App. 134, 811 S.E.2d 678 (2018). In Melton, the defendant's probation officer alleged the defendant absconded after failing to attend five scheduled meetings.