SBM hearing in North Carolina

2020App. at 194-95 , 693 S.E.2d at 206 (“In light of our decisions interpreting an SBM hearing as not being a criminal trial or proceeding for purposes of appeal, we must hold that oral notice pursuant to N.C.

2020App. at 194-95 , 693 S.E.2d at 206 (“In light of our decisions interpreting an SBM hearing as not being a criminal trial or proceeding for purposes of appeal, we must hold that oral notice pursuant to N.C.

2022App. 300, 303-04 , 697 S.E.2d 428, 431 (2010) (marks and citations omitted). ¶ 112 In State v. Clayton, we held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to enroll a defendant in SBM where the trial court had previously held an SBM hearing and determined that the defendant was not required to enroll in SBM.

2022App. 300, 303-04 , 697 S.E.2d 428, 431 (2010) (marks and citations omitted). ¶ 112 In State v. Clayton, we held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to enroll a defendant in SBM where the trial court had previously held an SBM hearing and determined that the defendant was not required to enroll in SBM.

2022App. at 209 , 696 S.E.2d at 853 (“We note that [the] defendant gave oral notice of appeal at the SBM hearing from the trial court’s final order. . . . [D]efendant’s oral notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. . . .

2022App. at 209 , 696 S.E.2d at 853 (“We note that [the] defendant gave oral notice of appeal at the SBM hearing from the trial court’s final order. . . . [D]efendant’s oral notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. . . .

2014In contrast, if the State presented any evidence at the SBM hearing that would support the highest level, “it would be proper to remand this case to the trial court to consider the evidence and make additional findings.” Id. at 370 , 679 S.E.2d at 434 . *244 A. “Additional Finding No. 1” - Short Period of Time between Conclusion of Supervision for Defendant’s “Prior Sexual Offense” and Reoffending First, defendant contends that there was no competent evidence introduced at the hearing to support the trial court’s finding that defendant was convicted of a “prior sexual offense” or that the 1998

2014In contrast, if the State presented any evidence at the SBM hearing that would support the highest level, “it would be proper to remand this case to the trial court to consider the evidence and make additional findings.” Id. at 370 , 679 S.E.2d at 434 . *244 A. “Additional Finding No. 1” - Short Period of Time between Conclusion of Supervision for Defendant’s “Prior Sexual Offense” and Reoffending First, defendant contends that there was no competent evidence introduced at the hearing to support the trial court’s finding that defendant was convicted of a “prior sexual offense” or that the 1998

2018In Greene , we held that where the defendant clearly and distinctly preserved an objection to SBM on Grady grounds, the appropriate remedy when the State fails to carry its burden of producing sufficient evidence to permit the trial court to make its required *468 Grady determination *534 is not to remand the case for a new SBM hearing, id. , at ---- ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345 -46 , which would effectively allow the State to " 'try again' by applying for yet another [SBM] hearing[,]" id. , at ---- ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345-46 ; see also id. at ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345 (reasoning that "the nature of

2018In Greene , we held that where the defendant clearly and distinctly preserved an objection to SBM on Grady grounds, the appropriate remedy when the State fails to carry its burden of producing sufficient evidence to permit the trial court to make its required *468 Grady determination *534 is not to remand the case for a new SBM hearing, id. , at ---- ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345 -46 , which would effectively allow the State to " 'try again' by applying for yet another [SBM] hearing[,]" id. , at ---- ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345-46 ; see also id. at ----, 806 S.E.2d at 345 (reasoning that "the nature of

2011App.-,-, 689 S.E.2d 510, 517 (2009) (holding that only the elements of a conviction may be considered as part of SBM analysis); State v. Treadway, - N.C.

2011Id. “[W]hen making a determination pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40A [regarding the SBM requirement], the trial court is only to consider the elements of the offense of which a defendant was convicted and is not to consider the underlying factual scenario giving rise to the conviction.” State v. Davison, 201 N.C.

2018App. at ----, 801 S.E.2d at 131 (reversing SBM order and remanding for a new SBM hearing where the trial court failed to conduct a proper Grady hearing); see also State v. Blue , 246 N.C.

2018App. at ----, 801 S.E.2d at 131 (reversing SBM order and remanding for a new SBM hearing where the trial court failed to conduct a proper Grady hearing); see also State v. Blue , 246 N.C.

2022App. 123, 126 , 683 S.E.2d 754, 758 (2009) (noting that the findings at an SBM hearing that a defendant does not challenge are “presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal”).

2011App. at -, 683 S.E.2d at 761-62 (approving of a trial court’s consideration of findings made in a probation revocation proceeding preceding the SBM hearing). *604 Regarding additional finding two, which states that Green has committed multiple acts of domestic violence, Green argues that this finding is erroneous as there is no competent evidence supporting it.

2022State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 516 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (marks and citations omitted). 6 Defendant also argues “Defense Counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel during [Defendant’s] SBM hearing when he failed to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” However, as discussed below, this issue is mooted by our resolution of his earlier SBM argument.

2022State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 516 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 333 (2012) (marks and citations omitted). 6 Defendant also argues “Defense Counsel failed to provide effective assistance of counsel during [Defendant’s] SBM hearing when he failed to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” However, as discussed below, this issue is mooted by our resolution of his earlier SBM argument.

2021App. at 770 , 805 S.E.2d at 370 (citation omitted). ¶ 18 Here, Defendant did not comply with the procedure necessary to preserve his SBM issue on appeal and has not demonstrated how his failure to object to SBM enrollment at trial “resulted in a fundamental error or manifest injustice[ ]” that necessitates this Court’s invocation of Rule 2.

2021App. at 770 , 805 S.E.2d at 370 (citation omitted). ¶ 18 Here, Defendant did not comply with the procedure necessary to preserve his SBM issue on appeal and has not demonstrated how his failure to object to SBM enrollment at trial “resulted in a fundamental error or manifest injustice[ ]” that necessitates this Court’s invocation of Rule 2.

2020Though those subject to State supervision have a diminished expectation of privacy, Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852 , 126 S. Ct. 2193, 2199 , 165 L.

2020Though those subject to State supervision have a diminished expectation of privacy, Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 852 , 126 S. Ct. 2193, 2199 , 165 L.

2020App. P. 10(a). “[I]n order for an appellant to assert a constitutional or statutory right on appeal, the right must have been asserted and the issue raised before the trial court.” State v. McDowell, 301 N.C. 279, 291 , 271 S.E.2d 286, 294 (1980) (citation omitted). 3 In State v. Griffin, this Court determined that the defendant preserved his Fourth Amendment argument when he argued during the SBM hearing that the “level of intrusion was not warranted.” Griffin, 260 N.C.

2020App. P. 10(a). “[I]n order for an appellant to assert a constitutional or statutory right on appeal, the right must have been asserted and the issue raised before the trial court.” State v. McDowell, 301 N.C. 279, 291 , 271 S.E.2d 286, 294 (1980) (citation omitted). 3 In State v. Griffin, this Court determined that the defendant preserved his Fourth Amendment argument when he argued during the SBM hearing that the “level of intrusion was not warranted.” Griffin, 260 N.C.

2020App. P. 10(a). “[I]n order for an appellant to assert a constitutional or statutory right on appeal, the right must have been asserted and the issue raised before the trial court.” State v. McDowell, 301 N.C. 279, 291 , 271 S.E.2d 286, 294 (1980) (citation omitted). 3 In State v. Griffin, this Court determined that the defendant preserved his Fourth Amendment argument when he argued during the SBM hearing that the “level of intrusion was not warranted.” Griffin, 260 N.C.

2020App. P. 10(a). “[I]n order for an appellant to assert a constitutional or statutory right on appeal, the right must have been asserted and the issue raised before the trial court.” State v. McDowell, 301 N.C. 279, 291 , 271 S.E.2d 286, 294 (1980) (citation omitted). 3 In State v. Griffin, this Court determined that the defendant preserved his Fourth Amendment argument when he argued during the SBM hearing that the “level of intrusion was not warranted.” Griffin, 260 N.C.

2010App. -, -, 689 S.E.2d 562, 565-66 (2010), which was decided on 5 January 2010, that, “for purposes of appeal, a SBM hearing is not a ‘criminal trial or proceeding’ for which a right of appeal is based upon N.C.

2010App. -, -, 689 S.E.2d 562, 565-66 (2010), which was decided on 5 January 2010, that, “for purposes of appeal, a SBM hearing is not a ‘criminal trial or proceeding’ for which a right of appeal is based upon N.C.

2022As Defendant has been convicted of three aggravated offenses, the trial court was statutorily required to order Defendant “to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring program for life.” N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40A(c) (2019); see State v. Watson, 258 N.C.

2019See Patel , 135 S. Ct. at 2451 , 192 L.Ed. 2d at 445 ("[A] [party] must establish that a 'law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.' " (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party , 552 U.S. 442 , 449, 128 S. Ct. 1184 , 1190, 170 L.Ed. 2d 151 , 160 (2008) )).

2019See Patel , 135 S. Ct. at 2451 , 192 L.Ed. 2d at 445 ("[A] [party] must establish that a 'law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.' " (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party , 552 U.S. 442 , 449, 128 S. Ct. 1184 , 1190, 170 L.Ed. 2d 151 , 160 (2008) )).

2019See Patel , 135 S. Ct. at 2451 , 192 L.Ed. 2d at 445 ("[A] [party] must establish that a 'law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.' " (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party , 552 U.S. 442 , 449, 128 S. Ct. 1184 , 1190, 170 L.Ed. 2d 151 , 160 (2008) )).

2019See Patel , 135 S. Ct. at 2451 , 192 L.Ed. 2d at 445 ("[A] [party] must establish that a 'law is unconstitutional in all of its applications.' " (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party , 552 U.S. 442 , 449, 128 S. Ct. 1184 , 1190, 170 L.Ed. 2d 151 , 160 (2008) )).

2018See e.g. , State v. Valentine , 357 N.C. 512 , 525, 591 S.E.2d 846 , 857 (2003) ("Defendant's argument is based upon his Fifth Amendment right to silence and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

2018See e.g. , State v. Valentine , 357 N.C. 512 , 525, 591 S.E.2d 846 , 857 (2003) ("Defendant's argument is based upon his Fifth Amendment right to silence and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

2018App. at ----, 801 S.E.2d at 131 (reversing SBM order and remanding for a new SBM hearing where the trial court failed to conduct a proper Grady hearing); see also State v. Blue , 246 N.C.

2018App. at ----, 801 S.E.2d at 131 (reversing SBM order and remanding for a new SBM hearing where the trial court failed to conduct a proper Grady hearing); see also State v. Blue , 246 N.C.