State v. Graham

Decision Date17 March 2020
Docket NumberNo. COA17-1362,COA17-1362
Citation841 S.E.2d 754
Parties STATE of North Carolina v. John D. GRAHAM
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Erin O’Kane Scott and Special Deputy Attorney General Benjamin O. Zellinger, for the State.

Appellant Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Daniel K. Shatz, for defendant.

ARROWOOD, Judge.

John D. Graham ("defendant") appeals from judgment entered upon his conviction for sexual offense against a child under age thirteen and order denying his Motion for Appropriate Relief ("MAR"). We find no error in the jury trial phase of defendant’s trial. However, we vacate the trial court’s order imposing lifetime satellite-based monitoring ("SBM") upon defendant, with remand for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on its appropriateness pursuant to Grady v. North Carolina , 575 U.S. 306, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015), and its progeny. Furthermore, we agree that the trial court’s order denying defendant’s MAR is insufficient, and vacate and remand for entry of an order not inconsistent with this opinion.

I. Background
A. Trial

On 11 September 2012, defendant was indicted on four counts each of engaging in a sexual act with a child under thirteen years of age and taking indecent liberties with a child. Defendant’s case came on for trial in the criminal session of Clay County Superior Court before the Honorable Eric Levinson on 5 December 2016.

The State’s key witness at trial was the alleged victim, A.M.D.1 A.M.D.’s testimony was to the effect that defendant had touched the outside and inside of her vagina with his fingers on numerous occasions at four separate residences where she lived with her mother, Cassie D., over a period between one and two years. A.M.D. testified in greatest detail regarding defendant’s sexual abuse of her at the residence referred to as "the Ruby Falls house." A.M.D. specifically mentioned three instances in which defendant inserted his finger into her vagina at the Ruby Falls house: on the couch in the living room while the family was watching television, on defendant’s bed in the basement while her siblings were playing videogames in the same room, and in her own room while defendant read her a book. A.M.D. also mentioned telling her step-grandmother ("Ms. Hester") that defendant hurt her and gesturing toward her genitals when asked where.

The State also presented three witnesses who testified that A.M.D. had made consistent statements to them on prior occasions. John Tucker, P.A., ("Mr. Tucker") testified that, during his medical examination of A.M.D. in 2012, she told him that defendant hurt her and touched or penetrated her vagina "[w]ith his hand" "[m]ore than one time[,]" but did not "stick a stick inside" of her. A.M.D.’s brother T.D. testified that when he asked her if defendant ever molested her, "she said yes but she never gave the details."

Ms. Hester testified that when A.M.D. was visiting her on 30 May 2012, A.M.D. mentioned that defendant was her mother’s boyfriend and was living with the family at the Ruby Falls house. A.M.D. told her that defendant "hurts" her, and when asked where, "she pointed to her private parts." Ms. Hester further testified that, around 2014, A.M.D. provided her with additional details on the molestation. Many of these additional details were consistent with A.M.D.’s trial testimony: "at the basement [of the Ruby Falls] house when they were watching TV ... [defendant] would always touch her private parts and hurt her there[;]" that her "mommy was present" when defendant molested her while watching TV in the basement of the Ruby Falls house; and "that he used his fingers a lot with her private parts, placing them in her private parts."

However, some of A.M.D.’s prior statements offered by Ms. Hester involved matters to which she did not testify, such as that defendant "made he[r] put his private parts in her mouth and that he had choked her[,]" inserted objects into her private parts, and "had hurt her on her back side." Defense counsel objected to the first instance of such additional information. The trial court gave a limiting instruction that the prior statements could only be considered to assess the credibility of A.M.D.’s trial testimony and allowed questioning to proceed.

Detective Tony Ellis of the Clay County Sheriff’s Department testified that he responded to the hospital on 2 June 2012 in response to a report of child molestation involving A.M.D. He set up a forensic interview for A.M.D. with a local child advocacy specialist on 4 June 2012. This interview was recorded and played for the jury. After ascertaining that the "Roger" A.M.D. alleged sexually abused her was defendant, Detective Ellis set about looking for him. Detective Ellis was unable to locate defendant at the residence of Cassie D., nor at any of his known prior addresses in North Carolina and Georgia. Detective Ellis then enlisted the help of the United States Marshals in locating defendant. After refreshing his recollection with the order for defendant’s arrest, Detective Ellis testified that the Marshals subsequently returned defendant to the Clay County Sheriff’s Department on 14 November 2012 and communicated to Detective Ellis that defendant had been apprehended and extradited from Puerto Rico.

At the close of its evidence, the State dismissed the four indecent liberties charges against defendant. Defendant’s only witness was A.M.D.’s maternal aunt, Holly D. Holly D. testified that A.M.D. told her on two occasions that her accusations against defendant were false and that A.M.D. had falsely accused defendant because her stepmother Lora D. had threatened to kill her mother if she did not, and bribed her with a horse and other gifts if she did.

On 9 December 2016, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of one count of engaging in a sexual act with a child under thirteen years of age and not guilty of the remaining three counts of the same offense. The charge for which defendant was found guilty corresponded to the alleged events at the Ruby Falls house.

B. Sentencing

The trial court sentenced defendant on 13 December 2016. The court first set about calculating defendant’s prior record level for the purpose of structured sentencing. The State introduced evidence of defendant’s prior convictions from Georgia, including statutory rape and child molestation, thru a copy of his indictment and plea paperwork for the convictions. Though presented by the State and acknowledged by the court, a copy of the Georgia statute under which defendant had been convicted was never placed in the record.

After some discussion with counsel for defendant and the State, the court found that the Georgia statutory rape offense was substantially similar to North Carolina’s own statutory rape law, which is a Class B1 felony. Thus, the court treated defendant’s prior conviction as a Class B1 felony and assigned him nine prior record points. The court also assigned defendant one point for escaping the Clay County Detention Center while awaiting his trial, for a total of ten points corresponding to Prior Record Level IV. The court sentenced defendant to 335 to 462 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to register as a sex offender upon his release.

Next, the court considered the State’s proposed order subjecting defendant to North Carolina’s SBM program for life after his release from prison. Counsel for defendant and the State agreed that the court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Grady v. North Carolina , 575 U.S. 306, 135 S.Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459, at which the State must prove that it is reasonable to subject defendant to the SBM program for life. The State offered several times to proceed with such a hearing. The trial court ignored the State’s offer to proceed introducing evidence in a Grady hearing. Rather, after taking notice of the facts adduced at trial, the court summarily gave its reasons for finding lifetime enrollment in the SBM program reasonable for defendant and entered the order. The court found lifetime SBM reasonable because defendant had been convicted of statutory rape of Cassie D. in Georgia, served eight years in prison, immediately absconded from parole upon his release, assumed a false name, and moved in with his former victim and began sexually abusing her daughter. Defendant gave oral notice of appeal.

C. Motion for Appropriate Relief

During the pendency of his appeal, defendant filed a MAR with this Court on 24 August 2018. The motion claimed that A.M.D. had recanted on her trial testimony and included an affidavit to that effect allegedly written by A.M.D. On 15 October 2018, we remanded defendant’s motion to the Clay County Superior Court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion ("the MAR hearing") pursuant to State v. Britt , 320 N.C. 705, 715, 360 S.E.2d 660, 665 (1987), within sixty days.

Due to scheduling conflicts with the prosecuting attorney and the Clay County Superior Court’s failure to hold a criminal session of court between the weeks of 3 September 2018 and 17 December 2018, defendant’s hearing was not held until 30 April 2019, over eight months after filing his motion with this Court.

The MAR hearing was held before the Honorable Athena F. Brooks from 30 April to 3 May 2019. At the hearing, A.M.D. testified that she fabricated her accusations of sexual abuse against defendant at trial due to bribes and threats from Lora D. Defendant introduced a letter into evidence that was alleged to have been written by A.M.D. and left on her mother’s desk in January of 2018, when A.M.D. was living with her father and stepmother. The letter made admissions consistent with A.M.D.’s hearing testimony. Cassie D. also testified at the hearing that, prior to trial, A.M.D. had also told her that she was falsely accusing defendant due to threats and bribes from Lora D. Cassie D. further testified that sh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Jeminez
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 15 Diciembre 2020
    ...findings regarding the availability of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) to Defendant. State v. Graham , ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 841 S.E.2d 754, 771 (2020) temporary stay and discretionary review granted in part on separate issue , 374 N.C. 428, 839 S.E.2d 352, 375 N.C. ......
  • State v. Hilton
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 19 Mayo 2020
    ...our Court invoked Rule 2 to address the merits of a defendant's appeal of the imposition of lifetime SBM in State v. Graham , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 841 S.E.2d 754, 769–70 (2020), and State v. Ricks , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 843 S.E.2d 652, 662–63 (2020). In both cases, our Court concl......
  • State v. Graham
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 29 Octubre 2021
    ...of sixteen and N.C.G.S. § 14-27.25 prohibits statutory rape of a person who is fifteen years of age or younger.5 State v. Graham , 270 N.C. App. 478, 496, 841 S.E.2d 754 (2020).¶ 9 Each of the statutes includes an express reference to the act of physical intercourse between the perpetrator ......
  • State v. Robinson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 31 Diciembre 2020
    ...191 L.Ed.2d 459, 461 (2015). This is a substantial right that warrants our discretionary invocation of Rule 2. State v. Graham , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 841 S.E.2d 754, 769, review allowed in part, denied in part , 375 N.C. 272, 845 S.E.2d 789 (2020).Here, we conclude that based on the ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT