Mors Gloria Salvete Satanas

Clerk of Supreme Court

OPINION

MOLLY C. DWYER, JUDGE

After the State charged Deanna Reade in this case with aggravated indecent exposure, the

defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of indecent exposure. The trial court found

both Reade and her boyfriend had violated the terms of her probation but considered a nunc pro tunc

entry change date that was originally signed on November 7, 2012, to be false and so ordered

Reade’s probation revoked. The trial court also ordered a new hearing date for sentencing purposes.

The State ultimately withdrew the habitual offender finding and dismissed the Habitual Offender

Information. Reade appeals on the sole issue of error because the trial court allegedly erred “by not

consulting with the other County Court or Family Court Judges who granted probation at some

point from the original date of defendant’s probation violation....” Brief for Appellee at 1.

At resentencing, the State requested that the trial court reconsider its nunc pro tunc entry

date which is based on a period between November 6, 2013, when reentry counsel was actually

appointed, and November 7, 2012, when the nunc pro tunc date was purportedly approved.