State v. Blue
Decision Date | 15 March 2016 |
Docket Number | No. COA15–837.,COA15–837. |
Citation | 246 N.C.App. 259,783 S.E.2d 524 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Malcolm Sinclair BLUE, Defendant. |
Attorney General, Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General, Joseph Finarelli, for the State.
Meghan Adelle Jones, for defendant.
Malcolm Sinclair Blue (defendant) appeals from the trial court's order requiring him to enroll in Satellite–Based Monitoring (SBM) and to register as a sex offender for his natural life. After careful review, we reverse and remand.
In 2006, the North Carolina General Assembly established a sex offender monitoring program that uses a continuous satellite-based monitoring system to monitor three categories of sexual offenders. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40 et seq. (2015). For nearly a decade, the SBM program survived constitutional challenges. See, e.g., State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (); State v. Martin, 223 N.C.App. 507, 509, 735 S.E.2d 238, 239 (2012) (); see also State v. Jones, 231 N.C.App. 123, 127, 750 S.E.2d 883, 886 (2013) ( )(citing United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) ), abrogated by Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015).
In State v. Grady, No. COA13–958, 2014 WL 1791246 , appeal dismissed, review denied, 367 N.C. 523, 762 S.E.2d 460 (2014), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 575 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015), this Court, relying on State v. Jones, overruled the defendant's argument that "SBM required him to be subject to an ongoing search of his person." The North Carolina Supreme Court denied review, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L.Ed.2d 459 (2015). On 30 March 2015, the Court held in a per curiam opinion that North Carolina's SBM program " effects a Fourth Amendment search." Id. at ––––, 135 S.Ct. at 1371, 191 L.Ed.2d at 462.
The Court stated, Id. at ––––, 135 S.Ct. at 1371, 191 L.Ed.2d at 462. The Court, acknowledging the stated "civil nature" of the program, explained, "It is well settled ... that the Fourth Amendment's protection extends beyond the sphere of criminal investigations, Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010), and the government's purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search." Grady, 575 U.S. at ––––, 135 S.Ct. at 1371, 191 L.Ed.2d at 462 (internal quotations omitted). Ultimately, the case was remanded to the New Hanover County Superior Court to determine if, based on the above framework, the SBM program is reasonable.
In the case sub judice, defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree rape in May 2006, and the trial court sentenced him to 80 to 105 months imprisonment. After defendant completed his sentence, the Harnett County Superior Court held a Determination Hearing on 6 April 2015 to decide if defendant shall register as a sex offender and enroll in SBM for his natural life. During the hearing, the following colloquy took place:
The Honorable C. Winston Gilchrist ordered defendant to register as a sex offender and enroll in SBM for his natural life. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal, filed written notice of appeal on 16 June 2015, and filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted on 30 December 2015.
Defendant's argument is twofold: "The trial court failed to exercise its discretion and therefore erred as a matter of law in denying [defendant's] request for a stay, in light of Grady v. North Carolina [;]" and "the trial court erred in concluding that continuous [SBM] is reasonable and a constitutional search under the Fourth Amendment in the absence of any evidence from the State as to reasonableness."
First, defendant argues that because "SBM is a civil, regulatory scheme subject to the rules applicable to other civil matters," the trial court had discretion to enter a stay. On appeal, defendant maintains that the trial court erred in failing to exercise discretion under Rule 62(d) of our Rules of Civil Procedure. At the hearing, counsel for defendant requested that the court "stay...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Spinks
...imposing satellite-based monitoring. State v. Morris , 246 N.C. App. 349, 352, 783 S.E.2d 528, 530 (2016) ; State v. Blue , 246 N.C. App. 259, 265, 783 S.E.2d 524, 527 (2016). Nor can we see a strategic reason for counsel to fail to properly file notice of appeal from the order. ¶ 63 Moreov......
-
State v. Ricks
....In Bursell I , our Court considered that the trial court and the State had the benefit of our Court's precedent in State v. Blue , 246 N.C. App. 259, 783 S.E.2d 524 (2016), and State v. Morris , 246 N.C. App. 349, 783 S.E.2d 528 (2016), which "made clear that a case for SBM is the State's ......
- State v. Miller
-
State v. Graham
...reasonable privacy interests, and the extent to which it furthers legitimate governmental interests. State v. Blue , 246 N.C. App. 259, 264-65, 783 S.E.2d 524, 527 (2016) (clarifying burden of proof at Grady hearing lies with State) (citing Grady , 575 U.S. at 310, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed......