subject: North Carolina Criminal Convictions Dangerous Weapon Registration Monitoring Sex Offender Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA vSTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAMIEN SMITH
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
October 13, 2009, Originally heard in the Court of Appeals
September 7, 2010, Filed
In Mecklenburg County Superior Court, on 30 June 2008, defendant was indicted on charges of first-degree sexual offense, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and first-degree kidnapping. Defendant entered into the plea agreement but retained the right to appeal the trial court's order that he enroll in satellite-based monitoring for sex offenders upon the completion of his sentence.
Issues:
(I) Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction over defendant when it enteredjudgment?
(II) Whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel?
(III) Whether the trial court erred by sentencing defendant as a level three (III) felon?
Observation and Holding:
On appeal, defendant cites this Court's holding in In re J.B., 186 N.C. App. 301, 650 S.E.2d 457 (2007), for the proposition that a juvenile court counselor's failure to file a petition within thirty days of receiving a complaint has a jurisdictional consequence. However, as this argument has been specifically overruled by our Supreme Court, we in turn overrule defendant's argument.
Defendant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant contends that his trial counsel failed to raise the specific argument that enrolling him in lifetime satellite-based monitoring for a crime committed prior to the enactment of satellite-based monitoring for sex offenders violated the ex post facto guarantees of both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Carolina. First, we note that defendant does not present any authority establishing that the North Carolina sex offender registration program violates constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. Therefore, we hold defendant has failed to establish there exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's failure to raise the ex post facto argument, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Accordingly, we overrule defendant's argument.
Here, the record contains a prior record level worksheet listing, under the heading "Stipulation," prior convictions for robbery with a dangerous weapon, a class D felony, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery of a business or person, a class E felony. Both convictions occurred on 26 April 2007. The worksheet is signed by defendant's trial counsel. Therefore, we hold that the stipulation by defendant's counsel may reasonably be construed as a stipulation by defendant that he had been convicted of the charges listed on the worksheet. It follows that the trial court properly determined, based on the stipulation to the charges on the worksheet, that defendant had a prior record level of three (III).
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
North Carolina Criminal Convictions Dangerous Weapon Registration Monitoring Sex Offender Lawyers Attorneys
