Opinion
No. COA11–1282.
2012-07-17
STATE of North Carolina v. Angela Marie WILLIAMSON.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State. Heather L. Rattelade, for defendant appellant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 April 2011 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 July 2012. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Rebecca E. Lem, for the State. Heather L. Rattelade, for defendant appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
Angela Marie Williamson (“defendant”) appeals from judgment entered upon revocation of probation. She contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation where the first extension of the term of probation was invalid. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
On 11 October 2007, defendant pled guilty to two counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud or forgery. The trial court imposed a suspended sentence of five to six months and placed defendant on twelve months of probation. On 3 September 2008, before the expiration of the probationary period, the trial court entered an order on a motion to modify, which struck and remitted the probation supervisory fee and extended defendant's probation by eighteen months.
On 19 June 2009, a probation violation report was filed, alleging multiple violations. On 28 August 2009, the trial court entered another order finding that defendant willfully violated the terms of her probation, and modified the original judgment by requiring defendant to complete the TASC drug treatment program, and extended the probationary period by thirty-six months.
A second violation report was filed on 4 March 2010, again alleging multiple violations. On 17 March 2010, the trial court entered an order finding that defendant willfully violated the terms of her probation. The court extended probation by one year, and ordered defendant to report to the Day Reporting Center for six months.
A third violation report was filed on or about 9 March 2011, alleging multiple violations, including a positive drug test, and that defendant was unsuccessfully terminated from the TASC program for non-compliance. The matter was heard on 20 April 2011, at which time defendant admitted the violations. The trial court again found that the violations were willful, and entered judgment revoking probation and activating defendant's original sentence. Defendant appeals.
II. Analysis
Defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her probation and activate her sentence because the 3 September 2008 modification of probation violated statutory and constitutional requirements. Defendant contends she was not given reasonable notice or an opportunity to be heard, nor had she violated any of the conditions of probation at that time. She asserts that since the initial modification in 2008 was invalid, her probation should have ended on 10 October 2008. Therefore, she argues, all of the probation violation reports filed after that date were untimely and could not have been the basis for further modification or revocation.
Our review of the record reveals no indication that defendant previously objected to the 2008 modification, nor did she raise this issue at the probation revocation hearing held on 20 April 2011. Since defendant has not previously raised this issue, we are bound to conclude that the issue is waived. See State v. Rush, 158 N.C.App. 738, 741–42, 582 S.E.2d 37, 39 (2003) (holding that defendant's claim of lack of jurisdiction to extend probation was waived for failure to raise the claim at the revocation hearing). As this is the only issue raised by defendant, we affirm the order of the trial court revoking probation and activating defendant's sentence.
III. Conclusion
Defendant did not preserve error for appeal, consequently we must affirm the order of the trial court.
Affirmed. Judges HUNTER (ROBERT C.) and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).