BRYANT, Judge.
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General, Jason R. Rosser, for the State.
Meghan A. Jones, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion
BRYANT, Judge.
Where the State failed to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b), and where the State's evidence was insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court for the revocation of defendant's probation in Case Nos. 11 CRS 543–45, we vacate the judgments imposed in those cases. In Case Nos. 12 CRS 1214–19, we remand to the trial court for correction of clerical errors.
On 13 January 2009, defendant Martin Luther Peele was indicted for two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14100, a Class H felony. On 6 April 2009, defendant was indicted for thirty-one additional counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. In 2009, defendant was also charged with a Class 2 misdemeanor, fraudulent disposal of personal property on which there was a security interest, in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–114. The charges of obtaining property by false pretenses arose from separate incidents occurring in 2007 and 2008. Defendant owned a business for the construction of metal buildings, and the charges alleged that in each case, defendant had received money to construct a building and then either failed to perform work or performed work that was defective.
On 24 February 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of two charges of obtaining property by false pretenses, and defendant pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge of fraudulent disposal of personal property.
The court imposed consecutive sentences in Case Nos. 11 CRS 543–45. Defendant was sentenced in Case No. 11 CRS 543 to a suspended sentence of thirty days imprisonment and placed on supervised probation for eighteen months for fraudulent disposal of personal property. In Case Nos. 11 CRS 544 and 545, defendant was given a suspended sentence of six to eight months imprisonment, placed on supervised probation for forty-eight months, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5,360.00.
On 1 March 2011, defendant entered pleas of guilty to twenty-seven charges of obtaining property by false pretenses and four charges of the misdemeanor offense of failing to perform work for which he had been paid, the latest of which occurred in April of 2007. Defendant's pleas were entered pursuant to a plea bargain under the terms of which he agreed to pay $45,276.47 as restitution to the victims of these offenses. The State agreed to dismiss other charges pending against defendant and to dismiss all charges arising from theses offenses that had been lodged against defendant's wife.
The thirty-one charges were consolidated into six cases for purposes of sentencing, and consecutive sentences of eight to ten months imprisonment were imposed in each case. These sentences were suspended, and in each case defendant was placed on probation for sixty months. The following chart summarizes the judgments and the original terms of probation.