Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; July 5, 2016; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
Defendant pled guilty to multiple charges, including two counts of statutory rape involving a victim aged 14, failure to update his address as a sex offender, felonious breaking and entering, felonious larceny, felonious possession of stolen goods, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Under a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to 34 to 53 years in prison and mandated enrollment in a satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program upon release. Defendant claims his guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily, and he contests the constitutionality of the SBM program under Grady v. North Carolina. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment but remanded for a hearing to evaluate the reasonableness of Defendant's enrollment in the SBM program. The procedural history includes a grand jury indictment and the offer of a plea agreement by the Assistant District Attorney, which stipulated that Defendant would plead guilty in exchange for certain consolidations of charges and a sentence within the mitigated range. On 5 March 2016, during the guilty plea hearing, Defendant's counsel noted that he was experiencing withdrawal from medications but confirmed Defendant was able to proceed with the plea.
Defendant stipulated to the factual basis for his plea during the plea colloquy. In case number 14-CRS-53209, on March 30, 2014, he broke into Blaine Dalton's residence at 3483 Dave Road, Walkertown, and stole several guns valued at approximately $1,500. In case number 14-CRS-053210, the State alleged that these stolen firearms were possessed by Defendant, a felon due to a 2013 conviction for indecent liberties with a minor, a class F felony. The offense date for the possession of a firearm by a felon was also March 30, 2014. In case number 14-CRS-053211, it was alleged that on March 29, 2014, Defendant stole a utility trailer with a water tank and hoses valued at $3,000 belonging to Jennifer Lynn Grubs. Defendant was identified as a suspect, confessed to these crimes during an interview with Detective Pettycord, and the confession formed the factual basis for his plea related to felony breaking and entering and possession of stolen goods.
Additionally, Defendant was charged with failure to register as a sex offender after not reporting his new address following his release from the Forsyth County Detention Center for misdemeanor larceny. Upon locating him, authorities discovered he was living with an adult female and her 14-year-old daughter. Detective Pettycord investigated and found that Defendant made phone calls to the girl, during which he made statements about their past relationship, including claims of having previously gotten her pregnant. The girl confirmed they had engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex multiple times, resulting in her pregnancy and subsequent abortion. After this information was presented, the trial court paused the plea proceedings for a bench conference. The following day, during a court appearance to enter a guilty plea, defense counsel noted Defendant's withdrawal symptoms, prompting concern from the court regarding his well-being and the substances he was taking, which included Ativan, Haldol, and Neurontin.
The court observed that the defendant was visibly unwell, shaking and nearly falling, and ordered a nurse to check on his health before proceeding. On April 30, 2015, the defendant entered a guilty plea, confirming he understood the charges, had discussed possible defenses with his lawyer, and was satisfied with legal counsel. The court confirmed the defendant’s understanding of his rights, including the right to a jury trial and cross-examination of witnesses, and noted that he was accepting a plea arrangement. The plea involved consolidating multiple charges into one B1 felony and multiple Class felonies, with all sentences to be served consecutively. The defendant acknowledged his acceptance of the arrangement.
Following the plea, the court sentenced the defendant as a prior record level III to consecutive sentences of 287 months for the Class B felony, 96 months for the Class C felony, 17 months for the Class F felony, and 16 months for the Class G felony. During a subsequent hearing, the district attorney argued for the defendant to be subject to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for life, citing his status as a recidivist and the nature of his offenses against a minor. The court ruled that the defendant must enroll in SBM for life unless terminated by future legislation.
Defense counsel objected to the lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) imposed on the defendant, citing the recent Grady case, which established that such monitoring constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Counsel argued that the State must demonstrate the reasonableness of the monitoring, which had not been established. The District Attorney countered that the Grady decision, issued on March 30, 2015, does not invalidate the SBM program or its constitutionality. The court asked about the law at the time of the offense, and the District Attorney stated that the relevant statute remained unchanged and valid. The court adopted the findings and asked if the defense had anything further, to which both the defendant and defense counsel reiterated their objections regarding the lack of a reasonableness finding.
On May 12, 2015, the defendant filed two notices of appeal: one regarding the guilty plea judgments and another concerning the SBM order. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed on December 16, 2015, arguing that while the issues were not appealable as a matter of right, they could be reviewed under certiorari due to the procedural context. The jurisdiction for this was supported by North Carolina appellate rules. The court recognized that a defendant's acceptance of a plea deal involves ensuring the trial judge followed proper procedures. Therefore, the petition for writ of certiorari was granted to review the guilty plea, and the appeal regarding the SBM order was deemed a final order eligible for appeal as of right.
The standard of review for constitutional violations is de novo, meaning the appellate court reviews the evidence and law without deferring to the trial court's decisions. Lastly, the analysis reiterated that a guilty plea waives fundamental rights and must be a voluntary, informed choice, highlighting the importance of proper judicial procedures in accepting such pleas.
A valid guilty plea must be entered voluntarily, with the defendant fully understanding the plea's nature and consequences, as established in State v. Tinney. The defendant claims his plea under the second agreement was uninformed, seeking specific performance of the first plea agreement instead. Plea agreements are generally treated as unilateral contracts, where the defendant's actual performance (pleading guilty) constitutes the consideration for the prosecutor's promise. The prosecutor cannot compel the defendant to plead guilty and may rescind the offer before the plea is formally accepted. Additionally, any plea arrangement requiring a sentencing recommendation needs judicial approval to be effective. Although plea agreements share characteristics with contracts, they differ significantly from standard commercial contracts. A defendant is entitled to relief if the plea was not made as a result of an informed choice. In this case, the record indicates the defendant's plea was made freely and voluntarily, supported by a thorough inquiry from the trial court. Pleas attempted on March 5 and 6 were not accepted due to lack of judicial approval and concerns regarding the defendant's medical condition at the time. On April 30, the trial court ensured the defendant understood the plea agreement before acceptance. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. Additionally, North Carolina's SBM program for sex offenders, established in 2006, has withstood constitutional challenges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable searches, with reasonableness assessed through the totality of circumstances, including the search's nature, purpose, and its intrusion on privacy expectations (Grady v. North Carolina). The Court acknowledged that this protection applies to civil programs like North Carolina's satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program. The case was remanded to the New Hanover County Superior Court to evaluate the SBM program's reasonableness.
Defendant, sentenced as a recidivist to life enrollment in the SBM program, challenged the order as an unconstitutional search. He argued that the State needed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the reasonableness of the SBM order and claimed the trial court failed to adequately analyze the constitutional issue, which prejudiced him. The trial court did not properly weigh the government's interest in monitoring against the intrusiveness of the search and the defendant's privacy rights.
The court noted that the trial court's statement about the defendant's recidivism did not suffice to justify the SBM without a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors. As a result, the order was remanded for a new hearing to assess the reasonableness of the SBM program in line with the Supreme Court's directives in Grady v. North Carolina. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in part and remanded in part, with concurrence from Judges Elmore and Davis.
