State v. Tincher , 266 N.C. App. 393 ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-1174
Filed: 16 July 2019
Randolph County, Nos. 06 CRS 51515, 51521; 18 CRS 77
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JOSHUA ELIJAH TINCHER
Appeal by Defendant from Judgments entered 16 April 2018 and 17 April 2018
by Judge Julia Lynn Gullett in Randolph County Superior Court. Heard in the Court
of Appeals 24 April 2019.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General David L.
Gore, III, for the State.
Michael E. Casterline for defendant-appellant.
HAMPSON, Judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
Joshua Elijah Tincher (Defendant) appeals from Judgments revoking his
probation. In addition, we grant Defendant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review
the trial court’s Order and Judgment holding him in Criminal Contempt. The Record
before us shows the following:
On 26 June 2006, Defendant was charged via two indictments. Under each
indictment, in cases 06 CRS 51515 and 06 CRS 51521, Defendant was charged with
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
Common Law Robbery and the Statutory Aggravating Factor of committing the
offense while on pretrial release on another charge, 06 CRS 51525. On 26 February
2008, Defendant pleaded guilty to these and other charges. At the time the
Judgments in question were entered, Defendant was serving an active sentence
pursuant to the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment.
In both the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment and the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment, the trial
court sentenced Defendant to a minimum of 20 months and a maximum of 24 months’
imprisonment and then suspended those sentences in favor of 36 months of
supervised probation. In the event that Defendant violated his probation upon the
expiration of the active sentence in the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment, the trial court
indicated that prison sentences in both the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment and 06 CRS
51521 Judgment were to run consecutively with one another. Additionally, in the 06
CRS 51515 Judgment, the trial court indicated on the Judgment that the 36-month
probationary period would begin at the expiration of the active sentence in the 06
CRS 51525 Judgment. However, in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment, the trial court did
not indicate when the 36-month probationary period would begin.
On 8 February 2018, Defendant’s Probation Officer, Catherine N. Russell
(Officer Russell), filed two Probation-Violation Reports alleging multiple probation
violations. As a result, on 16 April 2018, the trial court ultimately entered two
Judgments revoking Defendant’s probation in 06 CRS 51515 and 06 CRS 51521. In
-2-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
addition, as a result of Defendant’s alleged conduct in open court following the
probation-revocation proceeding, the trial court entered a Criminal-Contempt Order
against Defendant, holding Defendant in Criminal Contempt and ordering him to
serve 30 additional days in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Adult
Correction. The trial court then entered a Criminal-Contempt Judgment requiring
that the Criminal-Contempt sentence run consecutively with Defendant’s other
sentences upon his revoked probation.
Issues
The dispositive issues in this case are: (I) Whether the trial court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke Defendant’s probation in 06 CRS 51521; and (II)
Whether the trial court erred in summarily imposing Direct Criminal Contempt.
Analysis
I. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Defendant contends the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke
his probation in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment because the Probation-Violation Report
was filed outside of the probationary period set out in that case. We agree.
A. Standard of Review
“[T]he issue of a court’s jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time,
even for the first time on appeal or by a court sua sponte.” State v. Webber, 190 N.C.
App. 649, 650, 660 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2008) (citation omitted). “It is well settled that a
-3-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
court’s jurisdiction to review a probationer’s compliance with the terms of his
probation is limited by statute.” State v. Reinhardt, 183 N.C. App. 291, 292, 644
S.E.2d 26, 27 (2007) (alteration, citation, and quotation marks omitted). “[A]n
appellate court necessarily conducts a statutory analysis when analyzing 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). “Under a de novo review, the court considers the matter
anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal.” State v.
Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (citation and quotation
marks omitted).
B. Probation Revocation
Defendant’s probation was revoked in both file 06 CRS 51515 and file 06 CRS
51521 on 16 April 2018. Defendant does not challenge the revocation of probation in
06 CRS 51515. Rather, Defendant asserts the revocation in 06 CRS 51521 was
erroneous because the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment did not state that the probation was
to run concurrently with the 06 CRS 51515 Judgment’s probation or consecutively
with the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment’s active sentence. Defendant argues, therefore,
according to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346, the probation ran concurrently with his
active prison sentence already in effect in 06 CRS 51525. Defendant contends that
because this probation ran concurrently with his active sentence in 06 CRS 51525,
-4-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
the Parole-Violation Report filed in 06 CRS 51521 was filed after his probationary
period had already expired, thereby depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke
his probation.
Section 15A-1346 of our General Statutes states:
(a) Commencement of Probation. — Except as provided in
subsection (b), a period of probation commences on the day it is
imposed and runs concurrently with any other period of
probation, parole, or imprisonment to which the defendant is
subject during that period.
(b) Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences. — If a period of
probation is being imposed at the same time a period of
imprisonment is being imposed or if it is being imposed on a
person already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment,
the period of probation may run either concurrently or
consecutively with the term of imprisonment, as determined by
the court. If not specified, it runs concurrently.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346 (2017) (emphasis added). “A careful reading of the statute
shows that any sentence of probation must run concurrently with any other probation
sentences imposed on a defendant. The only power to adjust the timing of a probation
sentence is that found under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346(b).” State v. Canady, 153
N.C. App. 455, 459-60, 570 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2002) (citation omitted); see also State v.
Cousar, 190 N.C. App. 750, 757, 660 S.E.2d 902, 906 (2008) (holding that where the
trial court entered two active sentences and five suspended sentences and the
judgment states the five suspended sentences, if activated, run consecutively with the
two active sentences but does not specify whether these five probationary sentences
-5-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
run concurrently or consecutively with the two active sentences, the five suspended
sentences run concurrently with the two active sentences pursuant to Canady and
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346(b)).
In the instant case, it is undisputed that in the “Suspension of Sentence”
section of the Judgment form for 06 CRS 51521, the boxes on Lines 3 and 4, which
specify when the period of probation would begin, are not marked or checked.
Defendant contends, and we agree, the failure to mark one of these boxes requires us
to look at the default rule in N.C. Gen. Stat § 15A-1346. Here, because the boxes
have not been marked or checked to alter the default rule under N.C. Gen. Stat. §
15A-1346, the probationary period in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment ran concurrently
with Defendant’s ongoing active sentence from the day it was imposed. See N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1346(b); see also Cousar, 190 N.C. App. at 757, 660 S.E.2d at 906-07;
Canady, 153 N.C. App. at 459-60, 570 S.E.2d at 265 (citation omitted).
The State, however, contends the plea agreement in file 06 CRS 51521—which
Defendant, Defendant’s trial counsel, and the Prosecutor signed—contained language
requiring the probationary period to run at the expiration of the active sentence in
file 06 CRS 51525. The State further contends that the trial court provided additional
language to show its intent to have the probationary period imposed in the 06 CRS
51521 Judgment run consecutively with Defendant’s active sentence by marking a
box in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment that states, “[t]his sentence shall run at the
-6-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
expiration of sentence imposed in file number 06 CRS 51515.” Thus, the State asserts
that the trial court’s failure to mark an additional box in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment
altering the probationary period was a clerical error.
The State directs us to the plea agreement to infer intent because it references
the conditions of the suspended active sentences. However, the plea agreement
makes no mention that the probationary period in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment was
to run consecutively to the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment’s active sentence. Accordingly,
the plea agreement itself does not reflect any intention for the probation to run
consecutively with the 06 CRS 51525 Judgment or to alter the default rule under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346.
Additionally, even assuming the Record before us showed a clerical error, we
have limited authority in correcting clerical errors. If the correction of a clerical error
affects the substantive rights of a party or if the correction corrects a substantive
error, the Court is without authority to make a change. State v. Harwood, 243 N.C.
App. 425, 429, 777 S.E.2d 116, 119 (2015) (citations omitted). Furthermore, “[w]e
have repeatedly rejected attempts to change the substantive provisions of judgments
under the guise of clerical error.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). In
Harwood, on 29 May 2009, the trial court sentenced the defendant on seven different
judgments. Id. at 426, 777 S.E.2d at 117. The trial court suspended the last five of
the seven judgments and placed the defendant on 48 months of probation. Id. at 427,
-7-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
777 S.E.2d at 118. On 11 June 2010, the defendant was released from prison on the
first two judgments, and on 27 January 2014, a probation officer filed probation-
violation reports. Id. The defendant was found to be in violation of his probation,
and the trial court revoked probation accordingly. Id. On appeal, the defendant
contended because the judgments did not indicate when his probation was to begin,
his probation began when judgment was entered, in 2009, and thus expired in 2013,
several months before the probation-violation reports were filed. In response, the
State argued “this omission was due to a clerical mistake” and requested remand for
correction of the mistake. Id. at 428-29, 777 S.E.2d at 119. In examining the
judgments in Harwood, this Court disagreed with the State’s contention:
[E]ven assuming the 2009 trial court made a mistake, we hold
that this mistake would be a substantive error, rather than a
clerical one. Changing this provision would retroactively extend
defendant’s period of probation by more than one year and would
grant the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to activate five
consecutive sentences of 6 to 8 months’ imprisonment. Because
this provision is substantive, we lack authority to change it[.]
Id. at 430, 777 S.E.2d at 120 (citation omitted). We therefore concluded the State
failed to show the trial court intended for probation to run consecutively with his
active prison sentence, and even if it had, we lacked the authority to make “such a
substantive change to the judgments.” Id. at 432, 777 S.E.2d at 121 (citation
omitted). We further held the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to revoke
the defendant’s probation and activate his remaining sentences. Id.
-8-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
As in Harwood, we conclude—even assuming arguendo the trial court intended
Defendant’s probations to run consecutively—the error was substantive and
changing the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment would retroactively extend Defendant’s
sentence. Therefore, we lack the authority to change it.
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1346, Defendant’s period of probation in the
06 CRS 51521 Judgment ran concurrently with the active sentence imposed in the 06
CRS 51525 Judgment, not consecutively. As such, it expired prior to the filing of the
Probation-Violation Reports, and the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
revoke Defendant’s probation. Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s Judgment
revoking probation in 06 CRS 51521.
II. Criminal Contempt
Defendant next contends that the trial court failed to make statutorily required
findings of fact to support its summary imposition of direct Criminal Contempt, and
in the absence of such findings, Defendant asserts the summary Criminal-Contempt
Order, as well as the later Criminal-Contempt Judgment, was improperly entered.
A. Standard of Review
“A contempt hearing is a non-jury proceeding.” State v. Simon, 185 N.C. App.
247, 250, 648 S.E.2d 853, 855 (2007). “The standard of appellate review for a decision
rendered in a non-jury trial is whether there is competent evidence to support the
trial court's findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law
-9-
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
and ensuing judgment. Findings of fact are binding on appeal if there is competent
evidence to support them, even if there is evidence to the contrary.” Sessler v. Marsh,
144 N.C. App. 623, 628, 551 S.E.2d 160, 163 (2001) (citations omitted). “The trial
court's conclusions of law drawn from the findings of fact are reviewable de novo.”
Curran v. Barefoot, 183 N.C. App. 331, 335, 645 S.E.2d 187, 190 (2007) (citation
omitted).
B. Findings of Fact
Pursuant to Section 5A-13(a) of our General Statutes, direct criminal contempt
occurs when the act:
(1) Is committed within the sight or hearing of a presiding judicial
official; and
(2) Is committed in, or in immediate proximity to, the room where
proceedings are being held before the court; and
(3) Is likely to interrupt or interfere with matters then before the
court.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-13(a)(1)-(3) (2017). In addition, “[t]he presiding judicial official
may punish summarily for direct criminal contempt according to the requirements of
[N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14.]” Id. § 5A-13(a). The requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-
14 for imposing contempt in a summary proceeding are:
(a) The presiding judicial official may summarily impose
measures in response to direct criminal contempt when necessary
to restore order or maintain the dignity and authority of the court
and when the measures are imposed substantially
contemporaneously with the contempt.
- 10 -
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
(b) Before imposing measures under this section, the judicial
official must give the person charged with contempt summary
notice of the charges and a summary opportunity to respond and
must find facts supporting the summary imposition of measures
in response to contempt. The facts must be established beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Id. § 5A-14(a)-(b) (2017).
On 17 April 2018, the trial court entered its Criminal-Contempt Order. In this
Order, the trial court found Defendant
after having his probation revoked, he did yell “f*** them, the
motherf***ers.” He was standing within clear hearing of the
Court. This conduct was such that he should have known it to be
improper. His conduct was such that there was no excuse for such
conduct.1
Below this text, the form normally reads: “The undersigned gave a clear warning that
the contemnor’s conduct was improper. In addition, the contemnor was given
summary notice of the charges and summary opportunity to respond.” However, on
the form at issue, this language was stricken. As a result of the alleged actions, the
trial court sentenced Defendant to 30 days in custody for Criminal Contempt. The
trial then entered the Criminal-Contempt Judgment.
State v. Verbal directs our analysis here. 41 N.C. App. 306, 254 S.E.2d 794
(1979). In Verbal, the trial court cited the defendant, an attorney, for direct contempt
and sentenced him to two days’ imprisonment for being late returning from lunch.
1 We have censored the language used in the original Order.
- 11 -
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
Id. The defendant contended that his alleged behavior was indirect contempt. Id. at
307, 254 S.E.2d at 795. However, we did not reach the question of direct or indirect
criminal contempt because we held that the trial court failed to follow the proper
procedure set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14(b), which requires that a contemnor be
given an opportunity to be heard. Id. We further held that “it is implicit in this
statute that the judicial official’s findings in a summary contempt proceeding should
clearly reflect that the contemnor was given an opportunity to be heard” and without
that finding, the trial court’s findings do not support the imposition of contempt. Id.;
see also In re Korfmann, 247 N.C. App. 703, 709, 786 S.E.2d 768, 771 (2016) (holding
that even though the appellant had an opportunity to answer the judge’s preliminary
questions, the judge failed to give the appellant an opportunity to respond to the
charge before imposing it, which required vacatur of the trial court’s contempt order);
In re Owens, 128 N.C. App. 577, 581, 496 S.E.2d 592, 594 (1998) (holding that “the
requirements of [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-14] are meant to ensure that the individual has
an opportunity to present reasons not to impose a sanction”).
In the instant case, there is no record of a summary proceeding taking place or
the conduct in question, other than the written Order entered the day after the
alleged incident. There also is no evidence that the trial court afforded Defendant
the opportunity to respond to the charge or for Defendant to “present reasons not to
impose a sanction.” Owens, 128 N.C. App. at 581, 496 S.E.2d at 594. The fact the
- 12 -
STATE V. TINCHER
Opinion of the Court
trial court expressly struck the provision of the form Order indicating Defendant was
given notice and opportunity to be heard is proof, if anything, Defendant was not
offered the opportunity to be heard, and the State points us to no evidence to the
contrary.
As such, we conclude the Criminal-Contempt Order was facially deficient. We
further conclude the Criminal-Contempt Judgment entered upon that Order is
likewise deficient, and we reverse it.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s Order revoking
Defendant’s probation in the 06 CRS 51521 Judgment. We also reverse the trial
court’s Criminal-Contempt Order and Criminal-Contempt Judgment in 18 CRS 77.
Defendant makes no argument concerning the revocation of probation in the 06 CRS
51515 Judgment; therefore, this Judgment remains effective.
VACATED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
Judges DILLON and MURPHY concur.
- 13 -