An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA25-684
Filed 1 July 2026
Gaston County, No. 03CR067549-350
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DEMORRIS LEONTE DUFF
Appeal by Defendant from Order entered 17 December 2024 by Judge David
A. Phillips in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March
2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Sterling Rozear, for Defendant-Appellant.
HAMPSON, Judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
Demorris Leonte Duff (Defendant) appeals from an Order requiring him to
enroll in satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for his natural life. The Record before us
tends to reflect the following: STATE V. DUFF
Opinion of the Court
On 15 December 2003, Defendant was indicted on one count of Second-Degree
Rape. On 3 February 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to Second-Degree Rape, Crime
Against Nature, and two counts of First-Degree Burglary. The trial court entered a
judgment in accordance with the plea and sentenced Defendant to 116 to 149 months
of imprisonment.
On 8 December 2014, Defendant was released from his incarceration on post-
release supervision. The State instituted SBM proceedings against Defendant on 5
February 2015, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B. Defense counsel was
appointed to represent Defendant in the matter on 25 February 2015.
The proceedings were continued four times between April and September 2015.
On 2 September 2015, the trial court entered an order placing the matter in abeyance
until pending litigation regarding SBM was resolved in the Supreme Court of North
Carolina.
On 18 April 2017, the State filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of
Reasonableness of SBM. On 25 May 2017, Defendant, through counsel, filed a Motion
for Compliance with Court Order and Notice of Objection. Defendant argued, among
other things, the litigation surrounding the lawfulness of SBM proceedings was still
pending and, as such, the matter should continue to be held in abeyance.1
1 Defendant filed an amended Motion and Objection on 26 May 2017.
-2- STATE V. DUFF
Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the State’s Petition for SBM and
to Declare SBM Unconstitutional on 30 May 2017.
On 4 December 2017, the trial court entered an order rescinding the 2
September 2015 order which had held the matter in abeyance. The trial court ordered
the parties to set a date for the SBM hearing. The hearing was calendared for 28
September 2018.
The matter ultimately came on for hearing on 18 December 2024.2 At the
hearing, Officer Caulder Gillian of the North Carolina Department of Adult
Corrections testified that after Defendant was released from prison on 8 December
2014, he violated his post-release supervision five times before having his post-
release supervision revoked on 25 August 2017. The State introduced into evidence
a Static-99R form prepared by Officer Gillian, which determined Defendant was a
“well above average risk” offender. Officer Gillian testified it was reasonable to
impose SBM on Defendant based on her review of Defendant’s file, the Static-99R
form, and her training and experience. Defendant, for his part, argued SBM
constituted an unreasonable search and would violate his Fourth Amendment and
due process rights.
The trial court found Defendant had been convicted of an aggravated offense
and, due to his “well above average” risk level, required the highest possible level of
2 The Record is silent as to why the hearing was not held on 28 September 2018 and why the
hearing was not held until six years later.
-3- STATE V. DUFF
supervision and monitoring. Based on these Findings, the trial court concluded SBM
was appropriate and ordered Defendant to enroll in SBM for his natural life.
Defendant timely filed written Notice of Appeal. Counsel for Defendant filed
a no-merits brief with this Court on 1 December 2025.
Issue
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether no-merits review is available on
appeal from an order requiring SBM enrollment.
Analysis
Counsel for Defendant filed a no-merits brief requesting this Court conduct its
own review of the Record for possible prejudicial error. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) (providing guidelines for no-merits
briefs when counsel believes appeal is “wholly frivolous”); State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Defendant’s counsel represented he was unable to identify an
issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.
Defendant’s appeal arises from an Order requiring him to enroll in SBM. Our
Courts have consistently held SBM proceedings are civil in nature. See State v.
Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (“The SBM program at issue
was enacted with the intent to create a civil, regulatory scheme to protect citizens of
our state from the threat posed by the recidivist tendencies of convicted sex
offenders.”); State v. Bare, 197 N.C. App. 461, 467, 677 S.E.2d 518, 524 (2009) (“[W]e
conclude the legislature intended SBM to be a civil and regulatory scheme.”), disc.
-4- STATE V. DUFF
review denied, 364 N.C. 436, 702 S.E.2d 492 (2010). Moreover, this Court has held
Anders review is not available in appeals from SBM orders. State v. Lineberger, 221
N.C. App. 241, 243, 726 S.E.2d 205, 207 (2012).
Defendant, acknowledging this bar to review, asks this Court to “consider
whether legal developments that have occurred since Lineberger was decided warrant
reconsideration of the holding in Lineberger.” However, it is well-established that
“one panel of the Court of Appeals may not overrule the decision of another panel on
the same question in the same case.” In re Civ. Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d
30, 36 (1989) (citing N.C.N.B. v. Va. Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563, 299 S.E.2d 629
(1983)). Thus, to the extent Defendant asks us to “reconsider Lineberger[,]” we
decline to do so. See id.
However, Defendant further contends, even if we decline to revisit Lineberger,
we may still conduct an “Anders-like” review in this case. In support of this
argument, Defendant cites State v. Velasquez-Cardenas, 259 N.C. App. 211, 815
S.E.2d 9 (2018). In Velasquez-Cardenas, the Court addressed a novel issue in this
State: “[W]hether Anders-type review should be prohibited, allowed, or required in
appeals from N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-270.1.” 259 N.C. App. at 225, 815 S.E.2d at 18.
The Court held “Anders procedures apply to appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-
270.1.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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. COA25-684
Filed 1 July 2026
Gaston County, No. 03CR067549-350
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
DEMORRIS LEONTE DUFF
Appeal by Defendant from Order entered 17 December 2024 by Judge David
A. Phillips in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March
2026.
Attorney General Jeff Jackson, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.
Appellate Defender Glenn Gerding, by Assistant Appellate Defender Sterling Rozear, for Defendant-Appellant.
HAMPSON, Judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
Demorris Leonte Duff (Defendant) appeals from an Order requiring him to
enroll in satellite-based monitoring (SBM) for his natural life. The Record before us
tends to reflect the following: STATE V. DUFF
Opinion of the Court
On 15 December 2003, Defendant was indicted on one count of Second-Degree
Rape. On 3 February 2004, Defendant pleaded guilty to Second-Degree Rape, Crime
Against Nature, and two counts of First-Degree Burglary. The trial court entered a
judgment in accordance with the plea and sentenced Defendant to 116 to 149 months
of imprisonment.
On 8 December 2014, Defendant was released from his incarceration on post-
release supervision. The State instituted SBM proceedings against Defendant on 5
February 2015, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B. Defense counsel was
appointed to represent Defendant in the matter on 25 February 2015.
The proceedings were continued four times between April and September 2015.
On 2 September 2015, the trial court entered an order placing the matter in abeyance
until pending litigation regarding SBM was resolved in the Supreme Court of North
Carolina.
On 18 April 2017, the State filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of
Reasonableness of SBM. On 25 May 2017, Defendant, through counsel, filed a Motion
for Compliance with Court Order and Notice of Objection. Defendant argued, among
other things, the litigation surrounding the lawfulness of SBM proceedings was still
pending and, as such, the matter should continue to be held in abeyance.1
1 Defendant filed an amended Motion and Objection on 26 May 2017.
-2- STATE V. DUFF
Additionally, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the State’s Petition for SBM and
to Declare SBM Unconstitutional on 30 May 2017.
On 4 December 2017, the trial court entered an order rescinding the 2
September 2015 order which had held the matter in abeyance. The trial court ordered
the parties to set a date for the SBM hearing. The hearing was calendared for 28
September 2018.
The matter ultimately came on for hearing on 18 December 2024.2 At the
hearing, Officer Caulder Gillian of the North Carolina Department of Adult
Corrections testified that after Defendant was released from prison on 8 December
2014, he violated his post-release supervision five times before having his post-
release supervision revoked on 25 August 2017. The State introduced into evidence
a Static-99R form prepared by Officer Gillian, which determined Defendant was a
“well above average risk” offender. Officer Gillian testified it was reasonable to
impose SBM on Defendant based on her review of Defendant’s file, the Static-99R
form, and her training and experience. Defendant, for his part, argued SBM
constituted an unreasonable search and would violate his Fourth Amendment and
due process rights.
The trial court found Defendant had been convicted of an aggravated offense
and, due to his “well above average” risk level, required the highest possible level of
2 The Record is silent as to why the hearing was not held on 28 September 2018 and why the
hearing was not held until six years later.
-3- STATE V. DUFF
supervision and monitoring. Based on these Findings, the trial court concluded SBM
was appropriate and ordered Defendant to enroll in SBM for his natural life.
Defendant timely filed written Notice of Appeal. Counsel for Defendant filed
a no-merits brief with this Court on 1 December 2025.
Issue
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether no-merits review is available on
appeal from an order requiring SBM enrollment.
Analysis
Counsel for Defendant filed a no-merits brief requesting this Court conduct its
own review of the Record for possible prejudicial error. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) (providing guidelines for no-merits
briefs when counsel believes appeal is “wholly frivolous”); State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99,
331 S.E.2d 665 (1985). Defendant’s counsel represented he was unable to identify an
issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal.
Defendant’s appeal arises from an Order requiring him to enroll in SBM. Our
Courts have consistently held SBM proceedings are civil in nature. See State v.
Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (“The SBM program at issue
was enacted with the intent to create a civil, regulatory scheme to protect citizens of
our state from the threat posed by the recidivist tendencies of convicted sex
offenders.”); State v. Bare, 197 N.C. App. 461, 467, 677 S.E.2d 518, 524 (2009) (“[W]e
conclude the legislature intended SBM to be a civil and regulatory scheme.”), disc.
-4- STATE V. DUFF
review denied, 364 N.C. 436, 702 S.E.2d 492 (2010). Moreover, this Court has held
Anders review is not available in appeals from SBM orders. State v. Lineberger, 221
N.C. App. 241, 243, 726 S.E.2d 205, 207 (2012).
Defendant, acknowledging this bar to review, asks this Court to “consider
whether legal developments that have occurred since Lineberger was decided warrant
reconsideration of the holding in Lineberger.” However, it is well-established that
“one panel of the Court of Appeals may not overrule the decision of another panel on
the same question in the same case.” In re Civ. Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d
30, 36 (1989) (citing N.C.N.B. v. Va. Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563, 299 S.E.2d 629
(1983)). Thus, to the extent Defendant asks us to “reconsider Lineberger[,]” we
decline to do so. See id.
However, Defendant further contends, even if we decline to revisit Lineberger,
we may still conduct an “Anders-like” review in this case. In support of this
argument, Defendant cites State v. Velasquez-Cardenas, 259 N.C. App. 211, 815
S.E.2d 9 (2018). In Velasquez-Cardenas, the Court addressed a novel issue in this
State: “[W]hether Anders-type review should be prohibited, allowed, or required in
appeals from N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-270.1.” 259 N.C. App. at 225, 815 S.E.2d at 18.
The Court held “Anders procedures apply to appeals pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-
270.1.” Id. Here, by contrast, the issue of whether Anders-like review is available in
SBM cases has already been decided in Lineberger. Anders review is simply not
available in the present case. Lineberger, 221 N.C. App. at 243, 726 S.E.2d at 207.
-5- STATE V. DUFF
Finally, Defendant asks, if we decline to exercise Anders review, that we
exercise our discretion under Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure to review the Record for possible error. This Court has, in at least one
instance, chosen to exercise its discretion under Rule 2 to review an SBM order in an
appeal where appellate counsel filed a no-merits brief. See id. However, “the exercise
of Rule 2 was intended to be limited to occasions in which a fundamental purpose of
the appellate rules is at stake, which will necessarily be rare occasions.” State v.
Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 316, 644 S.E.2d 201, 205 (2007) (citations and quotation marks
omitted). Defendant has not raised circumstances which would justify invoking Rule
2. Accordingly, we, in our discretion, decline to invoke Rule 2.
Thus, Defendant’s appeal arises out of a civil matter. Therefore, Anders-
protections are not available to him. Consequently, because no other issue has been
raised on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s Order requiring Defendant to enroll in
SBM for his natural life.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s Order.
AFFIRMED.
Judges GRIFFIN and STADING concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-6-