Good . . . ‘Cause – North Carolina Criminal Law

This post is about the recurring issue of the requirement for a court to make findings of “good cause shown and stated” to preserve its jurisdiction to act on an alleged probation violation after the case has expired. The appellate courts have vacated many probation revocations for a lack of the required findings. The few affirmed cases show how to do things properly. Turns out, it’s not a demanding requirement.

The situation comes up all the time. An officer files a timely probation violation report but the case expires before there’s a hearing. The person is no longer on probation, but the violation remains pending—a situation officers refer to as “discontinued” status.

Under G.S. 15A-1344(f), a court has jurisdiction to hold the hearing after expiration if all of the following things apply:

• The State filed a violation report with the clerk before the case expired;
• The court finds that the probationer violated one or more conditions of probation prior to the expiration of probation; and
• The court finds for good cause shown and stated that the probation should be extended, modified, or revoked.

(There’s a fourth subdivision of G.S. 15A-1344(f), but it’s just a reminder that any extension of probation is limited to the five-year cap in G.S. 15A-1342(a).)

It’s the “good cause shown and stated” prong that has been wreaking a bit of probationary havoc. In State v. Morgan, 372 N.C. 609 (2019), the supreme court unanimously held that G.S. 15A-1344(f)(3) means what it says—a court has jurisdiction to act on a probation violation after expiration only if it makes a finding of good cause. After Morgan, dozens of cases have been vacated for lack of the required finding. See State v. Brewington, 911 S.E. 2d 405 (2025) (unpublished); State v. Siler, 295 N.C. App. 262 (2024); State v. White, 902 S.E.2d 364 (2024) (an unpublished conditional discharge case, indicating that the issue applies with equal force in that context); State v. Carpenter, 900 S.E.2d 239 (2024) (unpublished); State v. Hammond, 900 S.E.2d 417 (2024) (unpublished); State v. Leggette, 898 S.E.2d 383 (2024) (unpublished); State v. Pratt, 896 S.E.2d 761 (2024) (unpublished); State v. Jackson, 291 N.C. App. 116 (2023); State v. Black, 892 S.E.2d 511 (2023) (unpublished G.S. 90-96 case); State v. McSpadden, 891 S.E.2d 507 (2023) (unpublished); State v. Lytle, 287 N.C. App. 657 (2023).

The takeaway from those cases is clear: if the trial court makes no findings at all, whatever action it took on the case will be vacated on appeal. In many cases the matter is remanded back to the trial division for reconsideration of the findings. But in some, where there is nothing at all in the record related to good cause for the delay, the appellate court will vacate without remand. State v. Sasek, 271 N.C. App. 568, 576 (2020) (“The record does not show why Defendant’s probation hearing was not held in June 2017, or, in any event, at some time prior to the expiration of Defendant’s probation in January 2018. Therefore, we vacate the trial court’s judgments revoking Defendant’s probation without remand.”).

The appellate division isn’t the only place this issue can arise. If a probation period was previously extended after an earlier expiration, and that extension was ordered without the requisite finding of good cause, the defendant might argue at any later probation violation hearing that the trial court lacks jurisdiction due to the prior improper extension. It’s a sleeper issue that’s probably lurking in dozens if not hundreds of previously extended cases.

Thankfully, at this point we have some appellate guidance on what findings are needed to preserve the court’s authority to act on a discontinued case. And what we see is that it’s not an especially high bar to clear.

Procedurally, the burden is on the State to show and state the good cause. State v. Geter, 383 N.C. 484, 491 (2022) (“[T]he “good cause” contemplated by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1344(f)(3) therefore must be shown by the State, as the proponent of the ‘good cause shown and stated’ to justify the revocation of probation even though the defendant’s probationary term has expired and determined by the trial court, pursuant to its ‘broad discretionary powers.’”).

As to the substance of the finding, there’s yet to be an appellate case where the good cause found wasn’t good enough. In Geter, the defendant’s pending probation violation was based on new criminal charges that had yet to be resolved by the time the period of probation expired. The trial judge found it to be good cause to hold the hearing after expiration because it was “clear to the Court that the State waited until disposition of the underlying offenses alleged before proceeding with the probation violation.” Id. at 495. The supreme court held that this was a sufficient finding of good cause to preserve the court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation—even 399 days after the term had expired. Id. at 497.

As a supreme court case, Geter is certainly the leading authority on point. There are some additional (albeit nonbinding) datapoints in a series of unpublished cases.

State v. Parry shows that the good cause might be nothing more than the fact that the court simply couldn’t get to the matter any sooner. In Parry, a case arising out of Cherokee County, the defendant’s probation officer filed a violation report based on new criminal convictions in April 2022. Initially set for August 1, 2022—right before the probation term expired on August 3, 2022—the final violation hearing didn’t actually happen until October 25, 2022. The probation revocation ordered at that hearing was vacated by the court of appeals in 2023 for lack of good cause findings. See State v. Parry, 891 S.E.2d 345 (2023) (unpublished). On remand, the trial court considered whether good cause existed to revoke probation after expiration and concluded—with a charming hint of mountain common sense—that it did, “not[ing] for the benefit of the appellate division that we don’t have a whole lot of court dates here, so it was set for the next court date that was available.” In its written order, the trial court found that “Court sessions in Cherokee County are few and far between, and this matter was handled expeditiously and professionally by all concerned.” On the case’s second trip to the appellate division, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in finding good cause for revocation probation after the case had expired. State v. Parry, 905 S.E.2d 118 (2024) (unpublished).

In State v. Roberts, 897 S.E.2d 42 (2024) (unpublished), the violation hearing occurred five days after expiration. The trial court orally stated that “I would also find that his probation has expired, but there’s good cause to address it following expiration of his probation,” and made a written finding that “the court finds good cause to proceed with hearing outside period of probation.” The court of appeals affirmed the order. Id. (“The revocation hearing occurred . . . five days after the expiration of defendant’s probation, and the State presented evidence that tended to show defendant absconded from supervision for extended periods of time during his probation. Given these facts, and that the statute does not mandate that the trial court base its finding on any one consideration, we do not conclude that it was ‘arbitrary, capricious, or offended substantial justice’ for the trial court to find good cause to revoke defendant’s probation five days after his probationary period expired.”).

In State v. Harris, 897 S.E.2d 552 (2024) (unpublished), the court of appeals expressly noted the trial court’s similar lack of specific factual findings underpinning its determination of good cause, but nonetheless found no error. The defendant in that case was revoked for absconding at a violation hearing held in 2022 on a violation report filed way back in 2016. On appeal, the defendant argued that “neither the prosecutor nor the judge stated what the good cause was.” The court of appeals explained in a footnote that “we do not read Geter, Morgan, or N.C.G.S. § 15A-1344(f) as requiring that the trial court specify what it found to constitute good cause, only that good cause exist.” Thus, the tongue-in-cheek title of this post.

Each of these situations—waiting out a new criminal charge, infrequent sessions of superior court or violations occurring very near the expiration date, or long-absent absconders—is very likely to support a finding of good cause to extend, modify, or revoke after expiration. The real challenge for the State is to (1) identify the cases that are expired (it won’t always be obvious to the court), (2) show and state the good cause, and (3) remind the court of the need for findings to preserve its jurisdiction to act. Defendants, meanwhile, may wish to scan the record for any prior after-expiration extensions that may have been improper, or any probation periods that may have expired before anyone realized—perhaps because of an improper contingent sentence, see State v. Barton, ___ N.C. App. ___, 905 S.E.2d 230 (2024), or a misunderstanding about when probation begins on a split, see State v. Hendricks, 277 N.C. App. 304 (2021).

Finally, as far as memorialization of good cause findings goes, as noted in my earlier posts on this topic, there is no check-box or dedicated space on the revocation or modification order forms for the court to record its findings. So for now, the court will need to record its findings somewhere in the free text space on the form. In Geter, the court wrote “THE COURT FINDS AND CONCLUDES GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO REVOKE DEFENDANT’S PROBATION DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF HIS PROBATIONARY PERIOD” in the “Other” block on the revocation order.

In Roberts, the court wrote “COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE TO PROCEED WITH HEARING OUTSIDE PERIOD OF PROBATION” in the same “Other” block.

In Harris, the court penciled in “For Good Cause Shown and . . .” in the margin above the boilerplate language for the “CONCLUSION AND ORDER” block of the form.

Each memorialization sufficed.