IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA24-5
Filed 18 June 2025
Surry County, No. 21CRS051052-850
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
SHANNON EDWARD GAULT, Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 June 2023 by Judge Angela B.
Puckett in Superior Court, Surry County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 August
2024.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Assistant Attorney General Megan Shook, for the State.
Jason Christopher Yoder for defendant-appellant.
STROUD, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation and activating his
sentence. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke his probation. Alternatively, Defendant argues that the evidence was
insufficient to establish that he violated a condition of his probation. Although the
trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the probation violation, the State failed to
present evidence of the violation alleged in the probation violation report. We reverse
the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual and Procedural Background STATE V. GAULT
Opinion of the Court
On 18 July 2022, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to second-degree
exploitation of a minor and disseminating obscenity. Under a plea agreement,
Defendant’s charges were consolidated into one judgment, and he was sentenced to
20 to 84 months of imprisonment, suspended for 36 months of supervised probation.
As a condition of probation, Defendant was prohibited from accessing the internet
during the thirty-six-month probationary period. The trial court additionally ordered
no contact between Defendant and the minor victim, and he was required to register
as a sex offender.
On 21 March 2023, Defendant’s supervising probation officer, Officer Lyle
Burnette (“Burnette”), filed a report alleging that Defendant had violated the terms
of his probation. The violation report stated:
Of the conditions of probation imposed in that judgment, the defendant has willfully violated: 1. General Statute 15A-1343(b) (1) “Commit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction” in that . . . DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH A FAILURE TO REGISTER IN REGARDS TO HAVING SOCIAL MEDIA CITE (sic) NOT REGISTERED WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ON 1/18/23. THIS IS A VIOLATION OF . . . DEFENDANTS PROBATION.
Defendant denied the allegation and requested a hearing on the violation.
On 26 June 2023, the trial court held Defendant’s probation violation hearing.
Defendant’s counsel first sought a continuance, explaining that the violation involved
a new felony charge for which he did not have discovery. The trial court denied
Defendant’s counsel’s request. At the hearing, Burnette did not testify. Instead, the
-2- STATE V. GAULT
trial court heard testimony from another probation officer, Officer Seth Cook (“Cook”),
who conducted the check-up on Defendant alongside Burnette.
Cook testified he and Burnette performed a “multiple sex offender check up”
in March 2023. Cook was aware that Defendant was “not to have in his possession
any social media [or] any pornographic material[.]” Also, that sex offenders under
supervision are required to register all social media accounts with the sheriff’s office.
When they entered Defendant’s apartment, he was on Facetime with a female who
appeared to be young. Cook detained Defendant and went through his phone. On
his phone, Cook found pornographic websites and multiple social media applications,
including Snapchat and Facebook.
To Cook’s knowledge, Defendant did not have any social media accounts
registered with the sheriff’s office; however, he testified that Burnette was the one
who checked the registration status. During his testimony, Cook accessed Burnette’s
narrative notes and testified about their contents. He testified that Burnette spoke
to a sergeant in the transportation department at the sheriff’s office, who confirmed
that Defendant did not have any accounts or “online identifier[s]” registered.
Burnette’s notes also included several screenshots from Defendant’s phone.
The screenshots were taken from various online platforms that both Burnette and
Cook discovered during their examination of his phone. One screenshot was from
Snapchat and displayed Defendant’s username as “RHEC_Shannon33.” Cook
confirmed that Snapchat is a social media-based company. Another screenshot was
-3- STATE V. GAULT
of a forum on the Reddit platform, which is an “online multi-purpose forum where
you register to get an identifier, which you can then post to that [forum].” However,
a user may access Reddit without registering for an account. The screenshot stated,
“Top Stories for Shannon” and the specific forum was titled “I’m 15 and my crush is
40. Is it normal?” The other screenshots on Defendant’s phone were “pornographic in
nature.” However, the State presented no evidence of any actions of Defendant on or
around 18 January 2023, the date stated in both the probation violation report and
in the order. The testimony all related to the visit to Defendant’s home in March 2023.
Based on this evidence, the trial court concluded that Defendant was in
violation of his probation by failing to register “a social media [site] with the Sheriff’s
department.” As a result, Defendant’s probation was revoked and his sentence was
activated. Defendant provided oral notice of appeal following sentencing.
That same day, the trial court documented its oral findings and conclusions in
a supplemental order with written findings of fact:
The [c]ourt after hearing all of the evidence presented by both the State and by . . . Defendant finds that the [c]ourt is reasonably satisfied in its discretion that . . . Defendant did violate the condition of his probation that he not commit any new criminal offense in any jurisdiction in that on January 18, 2023 . . . [D]efendant did have a social media cite (sic), to wit Snapchat and Reddit, that was not registered with the Sheriffs Department that was required by law due to [D]efendant’s underlying conviction in this case.
The [c]ourt finds the condition was a valid a condition of probation and . . . Defendant violated the condition
-4- STATE V. GAULT
willfully and without valid excuse at a time prior to the expiration or termination of his probation.
II. Analysis
Defendant asserts three arguments on appeal: (1) the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to revoke his probation for commission of a criminal offense because the
violation report failed to state any criminal conduct or provide adequate notice of the
criminal conduct alleged; (2) alternatively, the trial court erred by revoking his
probation because the State failed to prove the allegation in the violation report; and
(3) the trial court’s findings of fact were not supported by competent evidence,
therefore, it erred by concluding that Defendant committed a new criminal offense
based on the evidence. We hold the trial court had jurisdiction to revoke Defendant’s
probation and he received adequate notice of the alleged criminal offense. However,
we further hold the trial court erred by revoking Defendant’s probation, as the State
failed to prove the allegation in the violation report and presented insufficient
evidence of the violation.
A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant first argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
revoke his probation because the probation violation report failed to allege any
criminal conduct and failed to provide adequate notice of the alleged offense, which
would have allowed him to prepare his defense.
“[A]n appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing
-5- STATE V. GAULT
whether a trial court has subject matter jurisdiction in a probation revocation
hearing, and thus conducts a de novo review.” State v. Satanek, 190 N.C. App. 653,
656, 660 S.E.2d 623, 625 (2008) (citation omitted). “A defendant may raise this issue
at any time, even for the first time on appeal.” State v. Knox, 239 N.C. App. 430, 432,
768 S.E.2d 381, 383 (2015) (citation omitted).
Under North Carolina law, a registered sex offender must “inform the
registering sheriff of any new or changes to existing online identifiers that the person
uses or intends to use.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11(a)(10) (2023). An “online
identifier” is defined as “[e]lectronic mail address, instant message screen name, user
ID, chat or other Internet communication name, but it does not mean social security
number, date of birth, or pin number.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.6(1n) (2023). If an
offender changes or obtains a new online identifier, this information must be reported
within ten days to the registering sheriff. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.9(e) (2023). A
failure to report an online identifier is a Class F felony. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
208.11(a).
Put together, if a registered sex offender fails to report an online identifier to
the sheriff within ten days, he is guilty of a Class F felony and therefore, committed
a criminal offense within our jurisdiction. Of relevance here, a trial court may revoke
probation if the defendant commits a criminal offense within any jurisdiction. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1) (2023) (“As regular conditions of probation, a
defendant must . . . [c]ommit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction.”).
-6- STATE V. GAULT
In order to revoke a defendant’s probation, the trial court must, at the
discretion of the defendant, “hold a hearing to determine whether to revoke or extend
probation and must make findings to support the decision.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-
1345(e) (2023). If a defendant elects to hold a hearing, “[t]he State must give the
probationer notice of the hearing and its purpose, including a statement of the
violations alleged.” Id. “The purpose of the notice mandated by this section is to
allow the defendant to prepare a defense and to protect the defendant from a second
probation violation hearing for the same act.” State v. Hubbard, 198 N.C. App. 154,
158, 678 S.E.2d 390, 393 (2009) (citation omitted). Stated differently, “[a] statement
of a defendant’s alleged actions that constitute the alleged violation will give that
defendant the chance to prepare a defense because he will know what he is accused
of doing.” State v. Moore, 370 N.C. 338, 342, 807 S.E.2d 550, 553 (2017).
Notwithstanding, “[a] court’s jurisdiction to review a probationer’s compliance
with the terms of his probation is limited by statute.” State v. Burns, 171 N.C. App.
759, 760, 615 S.E.2d 347, 348 (2005). “Where jurisdiction is statutory and the
Legislature requires the Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a certain manner, to
follow a certain procedure, or otherwise subjects the Court to certain limitations, an
act of the Court beyond these limits is in excess of its jurisdiction.” State v. McCaster,
257 N.C. App. 824, 827, 811 S.E.2d 211, 213 (2018) (citation omitted). Thus, as North
Carolina General Statute Section 15A-1345(e) prescribes a certain limitation, a notice
requirement, before the trial court can act, it is jurisdictional. Moreover, without
-7- STATE V. GAULT
adequate notice and a statement of the alleged violation, the trial court lacks
jurisdiction to revoke a defendant’s probation. See id. at 828, 811 S.E.2d at 214
(“Without prior and proper statutory notice and a statement of violations provided to
Defendant, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke her probation.”).
Our Supreme Court in Moore articulated the standard for what constitutes a
sufficient statement of an alleged violation to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Moore, 370 N.C. at 340-46, 807 S.E.2d at 552-55. There, the Supreme Court held,
“while the condition of probation which [the d]efendant allegedly violated might have
been ambiguously stated in the [violation] report, the report also set forth the specific
facts that the State contended constituted the violation.” Id. at 342, 807 S.E.2d at 553
(emphasis added). Accordingly, the “[d]efendant received notice of the specific
behavior [the d]efendant was alleged and found to have committed in violation of [the
d]efendant’s probation.” Id.
The Court in Moore established, “the notice needed to contain a statement of
the actions defendant allegedly took that constituted a violation of a condition of
probation—that is, a statement of what the defendant allegedly did that violated a
probation condition.” Id. at 344, 807 S.E.2d at 554-55. As the State alleged that the
defendant violated the condition that he “commit no criminal offense[,]” the
defendant, therefore, “needed to receive a statement of the criminal offense or
offenses he allegedly committed.” Id.
Defendant argues he was not given sufficient notice of the alleged violation in
-8- STATE V. GAULT
two ways. First, the report failed to state a criminal offense, as the failure to report
a “social media cite” is not a crime. Second, that the report failed to identify the case
file number, the county where the alleged violation occurred, the statutory subsection
of the alleged criminal offense, and what he failed to register.
The violation report stated Defendant “willfully violated: [North Carolina]
General Statute [Section] 15A-1343(b)(1) ‘Commit no criminal offense in any
jurisdiction.’” As to the term “cite,” we note that the violation report and other
documents refer to a social media “cite.” Briefs for both Defendant and the State
consider the word “cite” as a misspelling of the word “site” as a shortened form of the
word “website” and we agree and will interpret the probation violation report
accordingly.1 According to Moore, we are to interpret the violation report using the
“natural, approved, and recognized meaning” of the words. Id. at 344, 807 S.E.2d at
554. Although the statute gives a definition for “online identifier,” the relevant
statutes do not include a definition of the words “site” or “website.” Since the statutes
do not provide a definition, we use the dictionary definition. See Surgical Care
Affiliates, LLC v. N.C. Indus. Comm’n, 256 N.C. App. 614, 621, 807 S.E.2d 679, 684
(2017) (“When a statute employs a term without redefining it, the accepted method
1 Article 26 does not include a definition of a “site” or “social media site.” North Carolina General Statute Section 14-202.5 has a definition of “commercial social networking Web Site” but this definition applies only for the purposes of North Carolina General Statute Section 14-202.5 which applies to “high-risk sex offenders.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-202.5 (2023). There is no indication Defendant was charged with any violation under this section. In addition, the United States Supreme Court has held this statute to be unconstitutional. See Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98, 103, 1734, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2017).
-9- STATE V. GAULT
of determining the word’s plain meaning is not to look at how other statutes or
regulations have used or defined the term—but to simply consult a dictionary.”
(citation omitted)). Using the word in context, the relevant definition for the word
“site” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary is “one or more Internet addresses
at which an individual or organization provides information to others.” Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003).
The violation report alleged that Defendant was “charged” with a failure to
“register” a social media site “with the Sheriff’s department,” and that this was “a
violation of [ ] Defendants probation.” Defendant is correct in his assertion that the
failure to report use of a social media site does not constitute a per se criminal offense.
However, as discussed supra, because of Defendant’s status as a registered sex
offender, he was required to report “online identifiers” to the registering sheriff. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11(a)(10). The failure to report an online identifier to the
registering sheriff is a Class F felony, a criminal offense. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
208.11(a). The commission of a criminal offense is a violation of Defendant’s
probation. See Moore, 370 N.C. at 345, 807 S.E.2d at 555 (“While incurring criminal
charges is not a violation of a probation condition, criminal charges are alleged
criminal offenses. And committing a criminal offense is a violation of a probation
condition.”).
We hold the violation report provided Defendant with sufficient notice of his
action which allegedly violated a condition of his probation. The report stated the
- 10 - STATE V. GAULT
condition of probation that Defendant allegedly violated, that he commit no criminal
offense, and cited to the proper statute. It included “a statement of what [D]efendant
allegedly did that violated a probation condition[,]” which was his failure to register
a social media site with the sheriff’s office. Id. at 344, 807 S.E.2d at 554-55. Likewise,
it included “a statement of the criminal offense . . . that he allegedly committed[,]” as
Defendant was “charged” for his failure to register, which is a Class F felony, and
that the offense was a violation of his probation terms. Id.
For these reasons, we hold the probation violation report provided Defendant
sufficient statutory notice of the alleged probation violation. The report included a
statement of what Defendant allegedly did that violated a probation condition and
specifically, the condition he allegedly violated. Thus, because Defendant had
adequate notice, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction during his probation
revocation hearing.
B. Probation Revocation
Defendant next argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to
support the allegations in the probation violation report. He further asserts that, due
to this insufficient evidence, the trial court’s findings of fact were not supported by
competent evidence and the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that
Defendant violated his probation.
“Probation violation hearings are generally informal, summary proceedings
and the alleged probation violations need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
- 11 - STATE V. GAULT
State v. Johnson, 246 N.C. App. 132, 135, 782 S.E.2d 549, 552 (2016) (citation
omitted). During a probation revocation hearing, the evidence must “reasonably
satisfy the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion that the defendant has
willfully violated a valid condition of probation or that the defendant has violated
without lawful excuse a valid condition upon which the sentence was suspended.”
State v. Young, 190 N.C. App. 458, 459, 660 S.E.2d 574, 576 (2008) (citation omitted).
“The burden of proof rests upon the State to show a defendant willfully violated his
probation conditions.” Johnson, 246 N.C. App. at 135, 782 S.E.2d at 552 (citation
omitted).
“In order to revoke a defendant’s probation for committing a criminal offense
there must be some form of evidence that a crime was committed.” State v. Graham,
282 N.C. App. 158, 160, 869 S.E.2d 776, 778 (2022). “The evidence is sufficient when
‘the trial court can independently find that the defendant committed a new offense.’”
State v. McCullough, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ 909 S.E.2d 889, 894 (2024) (citations
Before the trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation, it must “make
findings to support the decision and a summary record of the proceedings.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1345(e). The findings of fact must outline the evidence which the trial
court relied on and the reason for its decision. Johnson, 246 N.C. App. at 136, 782
S.E.2d at 552. If the trial court concludes that a probation condition has been
violated, its findings must be supported by competent evidence. State v. Jones, 225
- 12 - STATE V. GAULT
N.C. App. 181, 183, 736 S.E.2d 634, 636 (2013).
This Court reviews the trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation
for abuse of discretion. State v. Murchison, 367 N.C. 461, 464, 758 S.E.2d 356, 358
(2014) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion occurs 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. Pettiford, 282 N.C. App. 202, 206, 869 S.E.2d 772, 776
(2022) (citations and quotation marks omitted). “Though trial judges have discretion
in probation proceedings, that discretion implies conscientious judgment, not
arbitrary or willful action. It takes account of the law and the particular
circumstances of the case, and is directed by the reason and conscience of the judge
as to a just result.” State v. Talbert, 221 N.C. App. 650, 653, 727 S.E.2d 908, 911
(2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Although the probation violation report met the notice requirement under
North Carolina General Statute Section 15A-1345(e), we hold the evidence at the
hearing was insufficient to support the revocation of Defendant’s probation.
We must first address the date of the violation as alleged in the violation report
versus the evidence presented at the hearing. The probation violation report
specifically alleged that Defendant failed to register a “social media [site]” with the
sheriff’s office on 18 January 2023. The report was filed on 21 March 2023. At the
hearing, Cook testified that he and Burnette performed the check-up on Defendant
sometime in March 2023. In the trial court’s supplemental order, it found that “on
- 13 - STATE V. GAULT
January 18, 2023 . . . [D]efendant did have a social media [site.]” Also, the violation
report, citing the 18 January 2023 date, was incorporated by reference in the trial
court’s judgment. Thus, the violation report alleged, and the trial court’s subsequent
order and judgment found, that Defendant violated a condition of his probation on 18
January 2023; however, the evidence and testimony at the hearing only referenced
the March 2023 date. There was no evidence presented as to 18 January 2023 and
the State made no attempt to reconcile this discrepancy.
This Court previously addressed a similar issue in State v. Melton, 258 N.C.
App. 134, 811 S.E.2d 678 (2018). There, the violation report alleged that the
defendant violated her probation when she absconded from 2 November 2016 to 4
November 2016, the date the reports were filed. Id. at 136, 811 S.E.2d at 680. At the
hearing, the State presented evidence of the defendant absconding during that
specific period; however, it also presented evidence outside of that date range. Id.
Ultimately, the defendant’s probation was revoked and she appealed, arguing that
the trial court erred by revoking her probation because there was insufficient
evidence to support a finding that she absconded during the period alleged in the
violation reports. Id.
The Court in Melton recognized, “[i]n order to provide a defendant with notice
of the allegations against him, as required by [North Carolina General Statute
Section] 15A-1345(e), probation violation reports must contain a statement of the
specific violations alleged.” Id. at 137, 811 S.E.2d at 681. In applying the notice
- 14 - STATE V. GAULT
requirement, this Court limited its review to whether there was sufficient evidence
that the defendant absconded based on the dates alleged in the violation reports, from
2 November 2016 to 4 November 2016. Id. at 137, 811 S.E.2d at 681. After
considering all the evidence, this Court held, “there was insufficient evidence that
[the] defendant willfully refused to make herself available for supervision from 2
November to 4 November 2016 (the only time period we can consider under the
violation report and the court’s written finding).” Id. at 139, 811 S.E.2d at 682
(emphasis added).
While the Court in Melton addressed an absconding violation, and here
Defendant is alleged to have violated probation through the commission of a criminal
offense, we consider its analysis and application of the notice requirement to be
persuasive. Here, the probation violation report, incorporated by reference into the
trial court’s judgment, along with the trial court’s written findings of fact, alleged
that Defendant failed to register a “social media cite” with the sheriff’s office on 18
January 2023. Therefore, under Melton, our review is limited to the consideration of
evidence from 18 January 2023.
As discussed supra, there was no evidence regarding a violation on 18 January
2023, “the only time period we can consider under the violation report and the court’s
written finding.” Id. Even if the alleged date was a mere oversight, the burden was
on the State to prove that Defendant violated his probation; consequently, it was the
State’s responsibility to identify and address this error. Johnson, 246 N.C. App. at
- 15 - STATE V. GAULT
135, 782 S.E.2d at 552. There is insufficient evidence, much less competent evidence,
to show Defendant violated his probation by committing a criminal offense on the
alleged date.
This holding is further supported by considering, in combination, the specific
timing requirements outlined in North Carolina General Statute Section 14-208.9(e)
and the purpose of the notice requirement. A registered sex offender has ten days to
report a new online identifier, or any changes to an existing one, to the registering
sheriff. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.9(e). Thus, the date alleged in the violation report,
along with the date on which the ten-day period ended, is determinative. Even if we
were to assume the violation report contained a typographical error and was intended
to state “3/18/23” rather than “1/18/23,” the report’s filing date of 21 March 2023
would fall within the ten-day period, meaning Defendant would not yet be in violation
of his probation for the alleged criminal offense.
The State contends to the extent that the trial court incorporated a specific
date into its revocation order that was not supported by the evidence, that is not
dispositive where the conduct underlying the violation was supported by Cook’s
testimony. This argument contradicts the controlling statutory authority and
established case law.
First, the date of establishing or changing an online identifier on social media
“site” is critical because Defendant had ten days to register an online identifier with
the sheriff before he would have committed the criminal offense alleged as a violation
- 16 - STATE V. GAULT
of probation. See id. There is no evidence in the record as to the specific date on
which Burnette and Cook conducted the check-up or when the ten-day period began
and ended. There is no evidence showing when Burnette inquired with the sheriff
about Defendant’s registration status, nor whether this occurred after the ten-day
period had expired. Absent this evidence, this Court cannot determine the timing
that would have proven Defendant violated North Carolina General Statute Section
14-208.11(a).
Moreover, in addition to the 18 January 2023 date, we cannot conclude that
the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that Defendant committed a criminal
offense by failing to register a “social media [site],” specifically Snapchat and Reddit.
The State presented evidence of the alleged violation through Cook’s testimony. Cook
testified that he found multiple social media applications, including Snapchat, on
Defendant’s phone. Cook’s involvement was limited to the check-up on Defendant,
with his remaining testimony based only on Burnette’s narrative notes. We
acknowledge that during a probation revocation hearing, the trial court is “not bound
by the formal rules of evidence” and may consider hearsay evidence. Murchison, 367
N.C. at 465, 758 S.E.2d at 359 (citation omitted).
However, this Court has held that evidence was insufficient when the State
only relied upon a violation report and testimony from the probation officer stating
that the defendant was arrested for a crime, as this evidence only showed that he was
arrested, not that he committed a crime. See Graham, 282 N.C. App. at 160, 869
- 17 - STATE V. GAULT
S.E.2d at 778. The same is true here. The State presented the violation report and
testimony from Cook, stating that Defendant had unregistered online identifiers.
Cook was not aware, even with Burnette’s notes, who was contacted in the sheriff’s
office, when the sheriff was contacted, and how the sheriff learned that Defendant
had unregistered Snapchat and Reddit accounts. Further, there was no evidence of
registration documentation showing what Defendant had or had not registered.
Thus, the evidence showed only that Defendant had accounts on Snapchat and Reddit
in March 2023, and the trial court could infer he used some sort of online identifier
on these accounts. The evidence, however, did not show that Defendant failed to
register these accounts within the ten-day period after he created or changed an
online identifier, thus committing a crime.
We hold there was insufficient evidence to show that Defendant failed to
register an online identifier within ten days of its creation or change to the registering
sheriff. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Defendant’s
probation on the grounds that he committed a criminal offense under North Carolina
General Statute Section 15A-1343(b)(1).
III. Conclusion
We hold the violation report complied with the notice requirement under North
Carolina General Statute Section 15A-1345(e), so the trial court had subject matter
jurisdiction in Defendant’s probation revocation hearing. We further hold, however,
that there was insufficient competent evidence that Defendant violated his probation
- 18 - STATE V. GAULT
by committing a criminal offense. The trial court’s judgment revoking Defendant’s
probation is reversed.
REVERSED.
Chief Judge DILLON and Judge GORE concur.
- 19 -