State v. Alldred , 245 N.C. App. 450 ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-663
Filed: 16 February 2016
Pitt County, No. 06 CR 4252
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
JOHNNY ALLDRED
Appeal by defendant from order entered 13 January 2015 by Judge Thomas D.
Haigwood in Pitt County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 January
2016.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, for the State.
Ryan McKaig for defendant-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Johnny Alldred (“Defendant”) appeals from an order directing him to enroll in
satellite-based monitoring for the remainder of his natural life. We affirm.
I. Background
Defendant was convicted of one count of taking indecent liberties with a child
in 1990. In 2006, he was convicted of two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery. On
13 January 2015, the Superior Court of Pitt County held a hearing to determine
Defendant’s eligibility for satellite-based monitoring. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
STATE V. ALLDRED
Opinion of the Court
208.40B(a) (2013) (“When an offender is convicted of a reportable conviction as
defined by G.S. 14-208.6(4), and there has been no determination by a court on
whether the offender shall be required to enroll in satellite-based monitoring, the
Division of Adult Correction shall make an initial determination on whether the
offender falls into one of the categories described in G.S. 14-208.40(a).”); N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 14-208.40B(b) (2013) (“If the Division of Adult Correction determines that the
offender falls into one of the categories described in G.S. 14-208.40(a), the district
attorney, representing the Division of Adult Correction, shall schedule a hearing in
superior court for the county in which the offender resides.”)
Based on Defendant’s convictions from 1990 and 2006, the court found
Defendant to be a recidivist sexual offender, and ordered him to be enrolled in
satellite-based monitoring for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals.
II. Issues
Defendant argues the superior court’s order violates the ex post facto and
double jeopardy prohibitions contained within the United States and North Carolina
Constitutions.
III. Analysis
Defendant concedes in his brief that North Carolina’s appellate courts have
previously held that North Carolina’s satellite-based monitoring program is a civil
regulatory scheme, which does not implicate either the ex post facto or double
-2-
STATE V. ALLDRED
Opinion of the Court
jeopardy constitutional prohibitions or protections. See State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C.
335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (holding the satellite-based monitoring program
does not violate the ex post facto clauses of the state or federal constitutions); State
v. Anderson, 198 N.C. App. 201, 204-05, 679 S.E.2d 165, 167 (2009) (holding that
because the satellite-based monitoring program is civil in nature and does not
constitute a punishment, it cannot violate a defendant’s constitutional right to be free
from double jeopardy), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 436, 702 S.E.2d 491 (2010).
Defendant raises these issues solely for “preservation purposes.” Defendant
also does not raise or argue any issues regarding the reasonableness of the imposition
of satellite-based monitoring under the Fourth Amendment. Grady v. North Carolina,
__ U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015).
We are bound by these prior and binding opinions and overrule Defendant’s
arguments. See Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (“[The
Court of Appeals] has no authority to overrule decisions of [the] Supreme Court and
[has] the responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the
Supreme Court.” (quotation marks omitted)); In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384,
379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the
same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound
by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”).
IV. Conclusion
-3-
STATE V. ALLDRED
Opinion of the Court
Based upon the issues before us in this appeal, the superior court’s order
directing Defendant to be enrolled in satellite-based monitoring for the remainder of
his natural life is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Judges CALABRIA and DAVIS concur.
-4-