IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA22-1068
Filed 19 September 2023
Wilson County, No. 21 CRS 204
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JASMIN R. SINGLETARY
Appeal by Defendant from a judgment entered 23 May 2022 by Judge L.
Lamont Wiggins in Wilson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9
August 2023.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kyle Peterson, for the State.
Phoebe W. Dee, for the Defendant.
WOOD, Judge.
Jasmin Singletary (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s revocation of
her probation and activation of a sentence of ten to twenty-one months imprisonment.
Defendant was placed on thirty-six months of probation for five counts of obtaining
property by false pretenses. Three violation reports were subsequently filed against
her for, among other things, committing criminal offenses while on probation.
Probation Officer Heather Horne (“Horne”), who testified for the State at Defendant’s STATE V. SINGLETARY
Opinion of the Court
probation revocation hearing, had replaced Probation Officer Williams (“Williams”),
Defendant’s prior probation officer, shortly before the revocation hearing.
First, Defendant argues there was not sufficient evidence before the trial court
for it to find Defendant committed a crime while on probation where the State called
no witnesses except the new probation officer to testify as to the alleged crimes.
Second, Defendant argues the trial court violated her statutory confrontation rights
when it proceeded with the probation revocation hearing without Williams and
without making an explicit finding of good cause not to allow Defendant to confront
her.
After careful review, we conclude there was sufficient evidence before the trial
court to find Defendant committed a crime while on probation. We further conclude
the trial court did not prejudicially err when it proceeded with the probation
revocation hearing without Williams because other competent evidence established
Defendant violated probation by committing a new criminal offense.
I. Background
On 7 November 2019, Jasmin Singletary pleaded guilty to five counts of
obtaining property by false pretenses. The trial court entered three judgments.
Defendant was sentenced to an active sentence of imprisonment for a minimum of
ten months and a maximum of twenty-one months, suspended for thirty-six months
of probation. Defendant also was sentenced to a minimum of ten and maximum
twenty-one months imprisonment, suspended for thirty-six months of supervised
-2- STATE V. SINGLETARY
probation. The probationary sentence included a condition of paying $26,563.00
restitution to the victims of the false pretenses crimes as well as the costs of court,
bringing the total cost to $27,415.50. Finally, Defendant was sentenced to another
ten to twenty-one months imprisonment, also suspended for thirty-six months and
subject to the same terms and conditions applying to the second judgment. The trial
court ordered all sentences to run consecutively.
The regular conditions of Defendant’s probation, as relevant to this case, also
included:
[D]efendant shall: (1) Commit no criminal offense in any jurisdiction. . . . (6) Not abscond, by willfully avoiding supervision or by willfully making [D]efendant’s whereabouts unknown to the supervising probation officer. . . . (8) Report as directed by the Court or the probation officer to the officer at reasonable times and places and in a reasonable manner[.]
After Defendant’s release from jail, Defendant was on supervised probation in
Wilson County.
On 21 January 2021, a probation officer filed a probation violation report
alleging Defendant willfully failed to repay the amount ordered in restitution and
court fees and failed to pay supervision fees. At a probation violation hearing held 26
July 2021, Defendant admitted to not having paid any money toward the restitution,
court costs, and supervision fees, but she denied the willfulness of her failure to pay.
The trial court found Defendant violated probation by her failure to pay restitution,
court costs, and supervision fees. The court converted all restitution due except
-3- STATE V. SINGLETARY
$5,000.00 to a civil judgment and ordered monthly payments of $50.00, with
Defendant returning to court if she missed two or more payments.
Subsequently, three violation reports leading to Defendant’s probation
revocation hearing and the probation revocation at issue in this case were filed
against Defendant: (1) a 1 November 2021 violation report alleging Defendant failed
to make two $50.00 payments and committed a criminal offense as Defendant was
charged on 1 September 2021 with obtaining property by false pretense and uttering
a forged instrument in Johnston County; (2) a 22 December 2021 violation report
alleging Defendant absconded by leaving her last known address and failing to make
herself available for supervision; and (3) a 28 February 2022 violation report alleging
that on 29 February 2022 Defendant was arrested and charged with uttering a forged
instrument at the State Employee’s Credit Union (SECU) in Wake County and
violated her probation by being on the premises of a SECU on 31 August 2021, when
the alleged offense was committed.
The probation violation hearing was held 23 May 2022. At the beginning of
the probation revocation hearing, Defendant objected to Williams’s absence, arguing
Defendant had a right to cross-examine adverse witnesses unless the court found
good cause for not allowing confrontation. Defendant’s counsel relayed her
understanding that Williams was “on leave and they did not know when she was
coming back.” Defendant’s counsel explained there was conversation and text
messages between Defendant and Williams about which Defendant wished to cross-
-4- STATE V. SINGLETARY
examine Williams. The trial court asked for the State’s position on the matter, and
the State explained Williams was absent due to a death in her family. The trial court
then asked if Defendant acknowledged she had been served with a copy of the
violation report and was on notice of the allegations contained in the reports.
Defendant’s counsel acknowledged both points. The court stated, “the objection is
noted for the record.”
The State called Officer Horne as a witness. Horne had taken over as
Defendant’s probation officer. Williams was “not technically with the Department”
at the time because of a death in her family at the hands of someone who was
“criminally charged in a homicide.” Horne testified Williams made her aware of
Defendant’s pending probation violations and asked for her assistance with
Defendant’s case. Horne further testified that she was familiar with Defendant, her
case, and her violations.
Regarding the first violation report, Defendant admitted she had not made the
$50.00 payments for two months but denied her willfulness. Through counsel,
Defendant stated she since had paid some of it. Defendant admitted to the pending
charges of obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged instrument but
not to any “independent finding behind the charge.” Horne testified Defendant
cashed a check in the amount of $600.00 drawn on a closed bank account and
admitted during a phone conversation with both Horne and Williams that she had
cashed the check “to help her friends out.” The state submitted two exhibits
-5- STATE V. SINGLETARY
pertaining to the Johnston County charges of obtaining property by false pretense
and uttering a forged instrument. The State submitted two still images, dated 1
September 2021, from security footage captured inside the SECU showing a woman
standing in front of a bank teller’s counter. Horne testified the Johnston County
Sheriff’s Office sent her a copy of the images. The State also submitted a warrant for
Defendant’s arrest for obtaining property by false pretense and uttering a forged
instrument. The warrant accurately stated Defendant’s date of birth. It further
stated Defendant tried to deposit the check, which was “from a known closed BB&T
checking account belonging to the Defendant[,] into a [SECU] account belonging to
Dinesha Brice[.]” Horne testified she spoke with a Johnston County detective who
stated the photographic evidence confirmed Defendant was at SECU, wrote a check,
cashed it, and took funds.
Regarding the second violation report, Horne testified Defendant’s last known
address was a 406 Englewood Drive, at the time her case was accepted for courtesy
supervision in Johnson County. Horne testified Williams went to this address on 3
October 2021, but Defendant was not there. On cross-examination, Defendant’s
counsel asked Horne if she was aware of a message sent by Defendant to inform
Williams that Defendant had obtained a restraining order against her husband with
whom she had been living at the Englewood address. Horne stated that while she
could not testify as to a text message because she did not have access to Williams’s
-6- STATE V. SINGLETARY
cell phone, she was aware Defendant was scheduled to appear in court for a domestic
violence case in December.
Horne testified Williams did not hear from Defendant until 26 October 2021,
when Defendant called Williams and Horne (who were on the phone together) to
explain her son had a mental health issue and she was taking him for treatment.
Williams and Horne requested medical proof which Defendant did not provide. On 8
November 2021, Williams again went to the Englewood address, but family stated
Defendant lived in Clayton. Defendant did not provide notice of her change of address
to her probation officer, as required, nor did she make any visits to the probation
office. Some time later, Defendant reported an address in Johnston County stating
she lived there with her friend. However, when a Johnston County officer visited this
address, the resident stated Defendant did not live there but “only came through
every once in a while.” After further extensive efforts by probation officers to locate
Defendant, she turned herself in after absconding probation for a little over a month.
Horne replaced Williams as Defendant’s probation officer in February 2022.
On 28 February 2022, Horne filed the third probation violation report alleging
Defendant committed a new criminal offense. The State submitted two images,
provided to Horne by the Garner Police Department, purportedly of Defendant at a
SECU drive-through ATM in Garner. The State also submitted a Garner Police
Department arrest warrant naming Defendant and stating probable cause to believe
she uttered a forged instrument. The warrant stated there was probable cause to
-7- STATE V. SINGLETARY
believe Defendant delivered to SECU a forged check in the amount of $300.00 payable
to Dinesha Brice by Defendant. The warrant contained Defendant’s demographic
information, which Horne confirmed.
The State requested the trial court to have Defendant remove the mask she
wore at the probation revocation hearing for the trial court to compare Defendant’s
appearance to the images of the woman in the photos submitted by the State. In
response, the trial court stated:
For the record, when the State asked the Defendant to remove her mask earlier at the beginning of the proceeding for purposes of identification by the witness, the Court actually reviewed the court file. There was a picture of the Defendant in the court file and the Court has reviewed all the documentation and exhibits that have been presented by the State and finds that the individual in the photographs is indeed the Defendant seated in the courtroom.
After finding it more probable than not Defendant had committed a new
criminal offense while on probation, the trial court found Defendant in willful
violation of its terms and conditions. The trial court revoked probation and activated
the prison sentences. Defendant appealed to this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 7A-27(b)(1) (2022).
II. Analysis
The issues before us are: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence before the
trial court to find it more probable than not Defendant committed a new criminal
offense, and (2) whether the trial court erred by not making a specific finding of good
cause to proceed with the probation revocation hearing in Williams’s absence.
-8- STATE V. SINGLETARY
Defendant argues Horne’s testimony, the images captured at SECU locations,
and the arrest warrant for alleged new crimes were insufficient evidence for the court
to find it more probable than not Defendant committed a new criminal offense during
probation. Defendant further argues the trial court violated her statutory right to
confront Williams at the probation revocation hearing by proceeding in Williams’s
absence. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review
“We review a trial court’s decision to revoke probation only for manifest abuse
of discretion.” State v. Stephenson, 213 N.C. App. 621, 624, 713 S.E.2d 170, 173 (2011)
(quotation marks omitted). A probation revocation hearing requires evidence “to
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) (quotation marks
omitted).
[O]nce the State has presented competent 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. If the trial court is then reasonably satisfied that the defendant has violated a condition upon which a prior sentence was suspended, it may within its sound discretion revoke the probation.
Stephenson, 213 N.C. App. at 624, 713 S.E.2d at 173 (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
-9- STATE V. SINGLETARY
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Defendant argues Horne’s testimony, the still images from SECU security
footage purporting to show Defendant committing the check fraud crimes, and the
arrest warrants for the alleged crimes were insufficient for the court to find it more
probable than not she committed those crimes. Specifically, Defendant argues the
State needed to call law enforcement witnesses to present evidence about the
investigations relating to the crimes, civilian victim witnesses, or SECU employees
who could identify Defendant. Because the trial court specifically based its finding
of a probation violation on the commitment of a new crime, we limit our review to
that basis.
A trial court may revoke probation for committing a criminal offense while on
probation. N.C. Gen Stat. §§ 15A-1343(b)(1), 1344(a) (2022).
[T]he “mere fact that [a probationer is] charged with certain criminal offenses is insufficient to support a finding that he committed them. However, a defendant need not be convicted of a criminal offense in order for the trial court to find that a defendant violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1343(b)(1) by committing a criminal offense.”
State v. Hancock, 248 N.C. App. 744, 749, 789 S.E.2d 522, 526 (2016) (citation
omitted). It is sufficient that the “State . . . introduce evidence from which the trial
court can independently find that the defendant committed a new offense.” Id. at
749–50, 789 S.E.2d at 526. “The sworn violation report constitutes competent
evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that [the] defendant committed
this violation.” Id. at 750, 789 S.E.2d at 526; see also State v. High, 183 N.C. App.
- 10 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
443, 449, 645 S.E.2d 394, 397 (“Defendant's probation officer filed a violation report
that specifically stated that defendant absconded—a statement that in itself is
competent evidence that he violated his probation by absconding. Defendant's
suggestion that a statement in a probation violation report is nothing more than an
allegation, like the notation on the arrest warrant, is contrary to established law.”).
In Hancock, it was sufficient for the trial court to make “an independent
determination that defendant committed the three offenses charged . . . by finding
that defendant committed the violation alleged in the” violation report. Hancock, 248
N.C. App. at 750, 789 S.E.2d at 526. The violation report itself was based on evidence
of illegal drug possession found after a warrantless search of the defendant’s
residence. Id. at 750, 789 S.E.2d at 526. “Given the informal nature of a probation
revocation proceeding, the trial court was entitled to infer that the discovery of” drugs
in the defendant’s residence “gave rise to the criminal charges” for illegal drug
possession. Id. at 750, 789 S.E.2d at 526 (citation omitted).
In the present case, we are satisfied the trial court did not manifestly abuse its
discretion in finding it was more probable than not Defendant committed a new
criminal offense. The violation reports at issue were based on details provided in the
arrest warrants, but not only on the arrest warrants. Horne testified she was on a
phone call with Defendant and Williams in which Defendant herself stated she
cashed the check to help her friends out. The trial court made detailed oral findings
regarding the identity of the person in the images, finding that the person in the
- 11 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
images was Defendant. The trial court was entitled to infer from two arrest warrants
issued by two different law enforcement offices in two alleged incidences involving
fraudulent checks, two sworn violation reports, and Horne’s sworn testimony, that
the images of Defendant depicted her committing the crimes alleged. See Hancock,
248 N.C. App. at 750, 789 S.E.2d at 526. Thus, the court made an independent finding
based on the evidence provided at the probation revocation hearing and did not reach
its determination based solely on Defendant’s being charged with the crimes. See id.
at 749–750, 789 S.E.2d at 526. A probation revocation hearing is not a trial, and the
State need not present evidence sufficient to convict Defendant nor call as witnesses
the investigating officers of the crimes alleged. See id. at 749, 789 S.E.2d at 526.
Accordingly, we conclude there was sufficient evidence before the trial court
for it to find it more probable than not Defendant committed the new criminal
offenses alleged in the probation violation reports.
C. Confrontation Challenge
Defendant argues the trial court’s decision to proceed with the probation
revocation hearing in Williams’s absence violated Defendant’s right to confront
adverse witnesses in such hearings provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e).
Specifically, Defendant argues there was no evidence Williams was actually
unavailable where, although undeniably grieving, she was not ill or otherwise
incapacitated, and had not moved or transferred from Wilson County. Most
- 12 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
importantly, Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to make a specific good
cause finding when it merely noted the objection but did not address good cause.
“A proceeding to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution[.]” State v.
Duncan, 270 N.C. 241, 245, 154 S.E.2d 53, 57 (1967). Therefore, “a Sixth Amendment
right to confrontation in a probation revocation hearing does not exist.” State v.
Hemingway, 278 N.C. App. 538, 548, 863 S.E.2d 279, 286 (2021). Instead, N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1345(e) “is a codification of the probationer’s right to due process under
the Fourteenth Amendment” and controls the probationer’s right to confrontation in
a probation revocation hearing. Jones, 269 N.C. App. at 444, 838 S.E.2d at 689. Thus,
any “constitutional argument, to the extent it sounds in due process, collapses into
[a] statutory argument.” Hemingway, 278 N.C. App. at 548, 863 S.E.2d at 286. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e) provides, “At the [probation revocation] hearing, evidence
against the probationer must be disclosed to him, and the probationer may appear
and speak in his own behalf, may present relevant information, and may confront
and cross-examine adverse witnesses unless the court finds good cause for not
allowing confrontation.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e) (2022). Accordingly,
“while N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e) confers upon a probationer a right to
confrontation, it commits to the discretion of the trial court whether ‘good cause exists
for not allowing confrontation.’ ” Jones, 269 N.C. App. at 444, 838 S.E.2d at 689
(brackets omitted); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e) (2022).
- 13 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
“The denial of the opportunity to cross-examine an adverse witness does not fit
within the limited category of constitutional errors that are deemed prejudicial in
every case[.]” State v. Terry, 149 N.C. App. 434, 438, 562 S.E.2d 537, 540 (2002)
(quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Lewis, 361 N.C. 541, 544, 648 S.E.2d 824,
827 (2007) (violation even of Confrontation Clause rights may be harmless error in
light of other evidence of defendant’s guilt). The issue here, then, is whether the trial
court committed prejudicial error by not making an explicit finding that good cause
existed for not allowing Defendant to confront Williams.
In Terry, this Court held the trial court did not err in failing to require an
adverse witness to testify where (1) the adverse witness’s testimony would have been
merely extraneous evidence in light of other competent evidence presented through
the probation officer’s testimony and (2) defendant failed to request the professor be
subpoenaed. Id. at 438, 562 S.E.2d at 539 (evidence that the defendant failed to
report to a detention center on its own “was sufficient to satisfy the State's burden of
showing that defendant had violated an important condition of her probation”
without calling the adverse witness, and “Defendant did not at any stage in the
proceedings request that her professor be subpoenaed”).
There are limitations on a court’s decision not to allow a defendant to confront
a witness at a probation revocation hearing as demonstrated in two cases where this
court determined the trial court erred by failing to allow the defendant to confront a
witness. In State v. Coltrane, the defendant appeared before the trial court upon
- 14 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
allegations she violated a condition of her probation requiring her to obtain a job. 307
N.C. 511, 512–13, 299 S.E.2d 199, 200–01 (1983). In this extremely brief hearing, the
prosecuting attorney explained to the court that she heard from the probation officer
the defendant had not found a job. Id. at 515, 299 S.E.2d at 202. The trial court
asked the defendant if she had a job, and when the defendant started to explain that
she did not, the trial court immediately interrupted her and activated her sentence.
Id. at 515, 299 S.E.2d at 202. On appeal, the Coltrane court held the defendant’s
rights to “present relevant information” and “confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses unless the court finds good cause for not allowing confrontation” were
violated when the defendant was not allowed to confront the prosecuting attorney or
the probation officer and where the defendant was not allowed to speak on her own
behalf due to the hearing’s extreme brevity. Id. at 515–16, 299 S.E.2d at 202; N.C.
Gen Stat. § 15A-1345(e). Because the trial court “interrupted [the] defendant and did
not permit her to offer any explanation of her failure to obtain” a job, there was “no
competent evidence in the record to support the conclusion that [the] defendant
violated the condition of probation willfully or without lawful excuse,” and therefore,
the trial court erred in revoking defendant’s probation. Id. at 516, 299 S.E.2d at 202.
We recognize the statutory mandate under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e) for a
trial court to find good cause before denying a defendant’s request to cross-examine
an absent witness. In the present case, we also must recognize the controlling
authority of Terry which held testimony from an absent witness may be merely
- 15 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
extraneous in light of other sufficient evidence supporting the trial court’s finding
that a defendant violated her probation.
Here, the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding that Defendant
committed new criminal offenses was such that Williams’s testimony merely would
have been extraneous in light of the testimony provided by Horne. The trial court
had before it arrest warrants, SECU security footage images which the court
examined and found were of Defendant, and Horne’s independent testimony of
Defendant’s admission that she cashed a check for her friends. Horne initiated and
filed the third probation violation report alleging that on 29 February 2022,
Defendant committed a new criminal offense, was arrested and charged with uttering
a forged instrument at the SECU in Wake County, and violated the terms of her
probation by being on the premises of a SECU on 31 August 2021, when the alleged
offense occurred. Furthermore, she provided testimony regarding the new offense
and was available for cross-examination during the revocation hearing. The State
provided evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Defendant had
committed new crimes even without any testimony from Williams. Terry, 149 N.C.
App. at 438, 562 S.E.2d at 539.
Defendant specifically wished to cross-examine Williams regarding a text or
texts sent by Defendant to Williams stating she obtained a restraining order against
her husband. First, and most significantly, such testimony would have been relevant
to the issue of absconding. The trial court, however, based its revocation of
- 16 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
Defendant’s probation on Defendant’s having committed new criminal offenses, so
even if Defendant had cross-examined Williams regarding the restraining order, it
would not have impacted the revocation of her probation. Second, Horne conceded
she was aware Defendant was scheduled to appear in court for a domestic violence
case in December, allowing Defendant to develop testimony in her favor on the issue
of absconding.
Defense counsel even demonstrated an awareness that Williams would be
absent, stating her understanding that Williams was on leave for an unknown period
of time. Yet Defendant had not subpoenaed Williams. The trial court heard from
both Defendant and the State regarding Defendant’s objection to Williams’s absence,
and the trial court noted the objection for the record. The death in Williams’s family
clearly would have shown good cause to proceed in her absence. The trial court was
aware of the reason for Williams’s absence and decided to proceed. Because the
record demonstrates the trial court’s awareness of the circumstances surrounding
Williams’s absence, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by allowing
the hearing to proceed in her absence. See Terry, 149 N.C. App. at 438, 562 S.E.2d at
539.
Finally, if there were any error, Defendant was not prejudiced where the trial
court had before it competent evidence without testimony from or cross-examination
of Williams, and Horne, who filed the third probation violation report, testified at the
- 17 - STATE V. SINGLETARY
probation revocation hearing. Terry, 149 N.C. App. at 438, 562 S.E.2d at 540; see also
Lewis, 361 N.C. at 544, 648 S.E.2d at 827.
III. Conclusion
We hold there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding
Defendant committed a new criminal offense based on the arrest warrants, still
images of Defendant at two different SECU locations, the sworn violation reports,
and Horne’s testimony. We further hold the trial court did not prejudicially err by
not making an explicit finding of good cause where sufficient evidence and testimony
provided through Horne supported the trial court’s finding that Defendant violated
her probation, even with Williams absent from the hearing.
NO ERROR.
Judges MURPHY and HAMPSON concur.
- 18 -