State v. Parrish is an unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals from August of 2026 that addresses an issue that many criminal defense attorneys, district attorneys, and probation officials are cognizant of. It concerns how to handle probation violation hearings when the term of probation has or is near expiring. There was a dissent which raised some important issues that are helpful from a defense perspective so perhaps this case will find its way to the North Carolina Supreme on review.
Mr. Parrish appeared in Guilford County Superior Court on a probation violation. The trial court revoked his probation and activated his suspended sentence. On appeal, Mr. Parrish argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when it extended and later revoked his probation because his probationary period had already expired. Mr. Parrish contended that the trial court failed to make the legally required finding of good cause.
Mr. Parrish was placed on supervised probation for a term of 36 months. The probationary period began in September of 2021 and was set to expire in September of 2024. Prior to the expiration of his probation, Mr. Parrish’s probation officer filed violation reports against him in July and August of 2024. The alleged violations included failing to report; failing to make required payments; failing to fulfill educational requirements; failing to obtain a substance abuse assessment; committing a new criminal offense; and absconding. He had his first appearance on these allegations in November of 2024 where he was appointed counsel. He appeared in court with his counsel in December of 2024 and at that setting the case was continued to January 2025.
The first probation revocation hearing was held in January of 2025. At that hearing the State requested a continuance primarily based on Mr. Parrish having a pending criminal case that was set be heard soon after and the probation officer’s unavailability to testify. Mr. Parrish’s attorney indicated to the court that they were ready to proceed, but that he had not had an opportunity to speak with the probation officer regarding the case. The State’s motion to continue was granted and the hearing was continued to March of 2025. The continuance order stated that the continuance was allowed “due to this being the State’s first time requesting a continuance.” The Order went on to state that, “The probation officer was not presented for this proceeding thus good cause is shown. For good cause shown and stated, probation should be extended.”
The second hearing was held in March of 2025. At this hearing, the court heard testimony from both the probation officer and Mr. Parrish. After hearing, the trial court found Mr. Parrish to be in willful violation of the terms and conditions of probation including absconding. His probation was revoked and the suspended sentence activated. Mr. Parrish gave timely notice of appeal.
Because Mr. Parrish’s appeal raised a jurisdictional issue, the North Carolina Court of Appeals conducted its review de novo. In conducting its analysis, the Court focused its attention on N.C.G.S. §15A-1344(f) for the requirements of when a trial court can extend probation after the probationary period has ended. Under this statute, a trial court may only extend, modify, or revoke a defendant's probation after the assigned probationary period has expired if (1) the State filed a written violation report before the period expires; (2) the “court finds that the probationer did violate one or more conditions of probation prior to the expiration of the period of probation;’(3) the “court finds for good cause shown and stated that the probation should be extended, modified, or revoked.” Furthermore, the finding of good cause “must actually be made by the trial court and such a finding cannot simply be inferred from the record.”
The Court of Appeals determined that during the first hearing in January of 2025, the trial court found that Mr. Parrish violated one or more conditions of probation prior to the expiration of the probation period. The appellate court also found that the trial court had made a written finding of good cause due to the absence of the probation officer. Also, the trial court made a showing for good cause that Mr. Parrish’s probation should be extended.
On appeal, Mr. Parrish argued that the trial court’s granting of a continuance in January of 2025 was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court disagreed finding that there was no abuse of discretion because there had been no prior continuances and Mr. Parrish’s attorney expressed that he had not spoken to the probation officer but he hoped to do so prior to the revocation hearing. In addition, the continuance left the adjudication of the allegations against Mr. Parrish open, thus any error pertaining to the continuance was harmless. Mr. Parrish proceeded to argue that the revocation order of March 2025 was “unnecessary and duplicative” because the January 2025 order already extended his probation. However, the appellate Court found that the January 2025 order did not adjudicate the issues in the allegation report. That order merely served as a continuation of the revocation hearing. Neither party required that a ruling on the allegations be made during the January hearing and both parties appeared at the March hearing with the understanding that the allegations would be adjudicated. Although The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the language of the January order was ambiguous, that order was not based upon an adjudication of the alleged violations. Thus, the trial court retained jurisdiction. The appellate Court went on to find that the allegations contained in the probation violation report were properly adjudicated before the trial court at the March hearing and that the trial court acted withing its statutory authority by revoking Mr. Parrish’s probation and activating his suspended sentence.
The dissent had troubles with the way the majority applied the statute in this case. In the view of the dissent, trial court’s failure to hold a hearing at the January 2025 setting, given the resulting order that was entered, resulted in prejudicial error and not merely harmless error. The trial court was required to hold a hearing and make the statutorily required findings in order to extend Mr. Parrish’s expired probation. The trial court had no jurisdiction at the March hearing and therefore could not revoke the already expired probation. There was no consent, motion, or hearing to permit the trial court to conduct the hearing that took place in March.
This is an issue that does arise from time to time in the trial courts and many of those who frequently practice in those forums are aware of the dilemma presented by an expired probation with a timely filed violation report that has not been adjudicated. In this regard, most probation officers are steadfast in their efforts to ensure that revocation hearings are scheduled well in advance of the expiration of the probation period. Given that there was a dissent in this opinion, although it is unpublished, a review of this case by the North Carolina Supreme Court would provide some much needed and helpful clarification and guidance.
Recent Comments