State v. Dunston

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: August 5, 2014
• Docket: 14-401
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.

NO. COA14-401 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 5 August 2014

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Durham County No. 04 CRS 50087 JERRY LAMONT DUNSTON

Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 January 2014 by

Judge Michael J. O’Foghludha in Durham County Superior Court.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.

Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant.

HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.

On 25 October 2011, Jerry Lamont Dunston (“defendant”) was

convicted of second degree rape, second degree sex offense,

communicating threats, felony possession of cocaine, and

possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver

marijuana. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of

sixty to eighty-one months imprisonment. -2- On 28 August 2013, the State notified defendant that it had

determined that he had been convicted of an aggravated offense

as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40(a)(1), which required

defendant to enroll in the sex offender satellite-based

monitoring (“SBM”) program. On 9 January 2014, the trial court

entered an order requiring that defendant be enrolled in the SBM

program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant

appeals.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the retroactive

application of SBM violates guarantees against ex post facto

laws contained in the federal and state constitutions. We are

not persuaded.

The Supreme Court has held that “subjecting defendants to

the SBM program does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of

the state or federal constitution.” State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C.

335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010). We are bound by Bowditch.

See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985)

(holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow”

decisions issued by our Supreme Court). Accordingly, the trial

court’s order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. -3- Report per Rule 30(e).