Here is the fact pattern:

D placed on straight probation for four years in December of 1998.

Defendant has multiple technical violations that lead to Motion to Revoke being filed in November of 2002. She is arrested shortly thereafter and bonds out.

Defendant has an MTR hearing in March of 2003 at which time the judge find her in violation of her probation and extends her for two more years--retroactive from her December 2002 original term date until December 2004.

After the March MTR Hearing date we find out that she was arrested in February of 2003 while she was out on bond and awaiting her MTR Hearing. She never informed probation of the arrest and was never asked whether she had been arrested during the MTR hearing.

In June 2003 a new MTR is filed alleging the February 2003 forgery (of which she has now been convicted).

Question: Was she on probation in February of 2003 such that the new offense serves as a valid basis for a Motion to Revoke Probation.

It would seem to me that there are only two rationales: (1) That the filing of the MTR somehow stays the probation and keeps it from terming; or (2) that the judge's retroactive extension of her probation--at her request by the way--means that there was no active break in the probation.

Has anyone had a similar situation?

The same issue, of course, would have been involved even if you had known about the February forgery prior to the hearing. Can you ever allege a violation of an order occurring after the date on which it expired (on its face)? My argument would be that the order does not terminate except in accordance with sec. 20. While that section literally requires a finding of satisfactory fulfillment of the conditions before any discharge can be issued, clearly something more than just "expiration of the period of community supervision" is required. Furthermore, by making bail and not requesting a prompt (20 day) hearing, did not the defendant effectively agree to an extension of the conditions pending the hearing? On the other hand, if the order expired, I do not see how you can retroactively create a liability on the part of a defendant under sec. 22 (a)(2),(c). I would think the extension has to be prospective in nature (although I recognize this is more like a second period of supervision rather than an extension of the first period under circumstances like those in your case).
Some states proceed under the theory that while a fugitive, the running of the initial period of probation is tolled. E.g. Cannon, 457 So.2d 1177; Williams, 540 N.E.2d 300. But our courts do not seem to have embraced that idea directly. Let us know what happens in your case.