State v. Luke ( 2015 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-241
Filed: 20 October 2015
New Hanover County, No. 13CRS059316
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
MATTHEW ROBERT LUKE
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 3 October 2014 by Judge W. Douglas
Parsons in New Hanover County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12
October 2015.
Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, for the State.
Guy J. Loranger, for the Defendant.
DILLON, Judge.
Matthew Robert Luke (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s order
requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) for the remainder of his
natural life. Defendant also seeks review of his judgment upon a guilty plea by writ
of certiorari. For the following reasons, we affirm both the judgment and the SBM
order.
STATE V. LUKE
Opinion of the Court
On 3 October 2014, Defendant pleaded guilty to second degree rape and second
degree sexual offense and was sentenced to 44 to 113 months in prison. Upon finding
that Defendant was convicted of an aggravated offense, the trial court ordered
Defendant to register as a sex offender and to enroll in lifetime SBM upon his release.
Defendant timely filed written notice of appeal from the order imposing SBM.
Recognizing that he did not give oral or written notice of appeal from his judgment
as required by Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, Defendant
filed a petition asking this Court to review the judgment by writ of certiorari. In our
discretion, we grant Defendant’s petition for writ of certiorari for the purpose of
reviewing the judgment. See N.C. R. App. P. 21(a) (“The writ of certiorari may be
issued in appropriate circumstances by either appellate court to permit review of the
judgments and orders of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has
been lost by failure to take timely action”).
Counsel appointed to represent Defendant on appeal has been unable to
identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief
on appeal and asks this Court to conduct its own review of the record for possible
prejudicial error. Counsel has shown to the satisfaction of this Court that he has
complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99, 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), by
advising Defendant of his right to file written arguments with this Court and
-2-
STATE V. LUKE
Opinion of the Court
providing him with the documents necessary for him to do so. Defendant has not filed
any written arguments on his own behalf with this Court, and a reasonable time in
which he could have done so has passed.
A. Satellite-Based Monitoring
“Our Court has held that SBM hearings and proceedings are not criminal
actions, but are instead a civil regulatory scheme.” State v. Brooks, 204 N.C. App.
193, 194, 693 S.E.2d 204, 206 (2010) (internal marks omitted). “[T]his jurisdiction
has not extended the procedures and protections afforded in Anders and Kinch to civil
cases.” In re Harrison, 136 N.C. App. 831, 832, 526 S.E.2d 502 (2000). Nevertheless,
in the exercise of our discretion pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. 2, we have reviewed the
record and found no error. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s SBM order.
B. Judgment Upon Guilty Plea
In accordance with Anders, we have fully examined the record to determine
whether any issues of arguable merit appear therein. By virtue of his guilty plea,
Defendant’s right of appeal was limited to the sentencing issues set forth in N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 15A-1444(a1) and (a2) (2013). We have been unable to find any possible
prejudicial error and conclude that the appeal from judgment upon the guilty plea is
without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Chief Judge McGEE and Judge HUNTER, JR., concur.
-3-
STATE V. LUKE
Opinion of the Court
Report per Rule 30(e).
-4-