State v. Jones, COA13–286.
| Decision Date | 03 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. COA13–286.,COA13–286. |
| Citation | 750 S.E.2d 883 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Jeffrey Brian JONES. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
750 S.E.2d 883
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Jeffrey Brian JONES.
No. COA13–286.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Dec. 3, 2013.
[750 S.E.2d 884]
Appeal by Defendant from orders entered 12 December 2012 by Judge Marvin P. Pope, Jr., in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 August 2013.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Scott B. Goodson, for the State.
Amanda S. Zimmer, Southern Pines, for Defendant.
DILLON, Judge.
Jeffrey Brian Jones (Defendant) appeals from orders requiring him to enroll in satellite based monitoring (SBM) for the remainder of his life. We affirm.
On 5 August 2004, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child and one count of failure to register as a sex offender. 1 Defendant served an active sentence for these offenses and was subsequently released from incarceration on 23 January 2009.
More than three years later, Defendant was notified that he was required to appear for an SBM hearing to determine whether he qualified for SBM monitoring. 2 The matter was heard in Buncombe County Superior Court on 12 December 2012, at which time defense counsel, citing a written motion to dismiss that she had filed six days prior to the hearing, moved to dismiss the proceeding, contending, inter alia, (1) that the SBM regulatory regime was enacted after Defendant had committed the offenses for which he was sentenced, 3 and, therefore, retroactive application of the SBM regime to Defendant would violate Defendant's right to be free from ex post facto laws; and (2) that, in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Jones, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012), subjecting Defendant to SBM would violate Defendant's constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Assistant District Attorney then produced an Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) form and entered the following findings of fact on the court's behalf:
1. The defendant was convicted of a reportable conviction as defined by G.S. 14–208.6(4), but the sentencing court made no determination on whether the defendant should be required to enroll in [SBM] under Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.
2. The Department of Correction has made an initial determination that the offender falls into at least one of the categories requiring [SBM] under G.S. 14–208.40, and gave notice to the offender of the aplicable [sic] category(ies).
3. The District Attorney scheduled a hearing in the county named above, which is the county of the defendant's residence, the Department provided notice to the defendant as required by G.S. 14–208.40B, and the hearing was not held sooner than 15 days after the date the Department gave notice.
4. The defendant ... falls into at least one of the categories requiring [SBM] monitoring under G.S. 14–208.40 in that ... the defendant is a recidivist.
Relying on the foregoing findings, the trial court ordered that Defendant enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life. From these orders 4, Defendant appeals.
Defendant's first three arguments on appeal challenge the propriety of the notice he was afforded with respect to the SBM proceedings below. Specifically, Defendant contends (1) that the evidence of record fails to
[750 S.E.2d 885]
support the trial court's finding that Defendant was afforded notice as required under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B; (2) that the State's failure to provide sufficient notice violated Defendant's right to procedural due process; and (3) that the insufficient notice deprived the trial court of its subject matter jurisdiction to conduct the SBM hearing. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B(a) (2011) provides that the Department of Correction (DOC) “shall make an initial determination on whether the offender falls into one of the categories described in G.S. 14–208.40(a).” Id. This provision further provides that once this determination has been made
the district attorney, representing the Department, shall schedule a hearing in superior court for the county in which the offender resides. The Department shall notify the offender of the Department's determination and the date of the scheduled hearing by certified mail sent to the address provided by the offender pursuant to G.S. 14–208.7. The hearing shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grady
...an individual must constitute a search of the individual as well.’ " Grady , 2014 WL 1791246, at *2 (quoting State v. Jones , 231 N.C. App. 123, 127, 750 S.E.2d 883, 886 (2013) ). After this Court dismissed defendant's appeal and denied his petition for discretionary review, State v. Grady ......
-
State v. Grady
...the trial court's order, concluding that we were bound by our Court's rejection of a nearly identical argument in State v. Jones , 231 N.C. App. 123, 750 S.E.2d 883 (2013). State v. Grady , 233 N.C. App. 788, 759 S.E.2d 712 (2014) (unpublished). After our Supreme Court dismissed defendant's......
-
State v. Williams
...contention, defendant cites Justice Alito's concurrence in United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012). The Jones Court considered whether a law enforcement agency's monitoring of a vehicle while on public streets by benefit of an attached GPS locator amount......
- State v. Stewart