862 S.E.2d 362
N.C. Ct. App.2021Background
- In 2006 Billings pleaded guilty to 14 counts of taking indecent liberties with a child and was later enrolled in lifetime satellite-based monitoring following a 2009 "bring-back" hearing that classified him as a statutory "recidivist."
- In State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (2019), the North Carolina Supreme Court held mandatory lifetime satellite-based monitoring unconstitutional as applied to unsupervised individuals whose monitoring was imposed solely on a recidivist finding.
- After Grady, the Department of Public Safety produced lists of potentially affected registrants; Billings was listed, and the State scheduled a 2 March 2020 "review" hearing.
- At the 2020 hearing the State produced a Static-99R risk score ("Well Above Average") and argued for continued lifetime monitoring based on individualized risk; no written motion or other pleading invoking the court’s jurisdiction was filed.
- The trial court ordered Billings to remain on satellite-based monitoring; Billings appealed. The Court of Appeals vacated the 2 March 2020 order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and left open the State’s ability to file a proper application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to hold the 2 March 2020 satellite-based monitoring hearing? | The State: Grady does not bar rehearing; the court could consider individualized risk evidence now and thereby properly order monitoring. | Billings: Grady entitles him to relief; the State never filed a motion invoking the court’s jurisdiction for a rehearing. | Court: No jurisdiction — State did not file any pleading; 3/2/20 hearing was a nullity; order vacated without prejudice. |
| 2. If jurisdiction existed, did the State meet its Fourth Amendment burden to show monitoring was reasonable? | The State: Static-99R and criminal history justified continued monitoring as reasonable. | Billings: The State failed to show the search was reasonable for an unsupervised individual under Grady. | Court: Did not reach the Fourth Amendment merits because it found no jurisdiction. |
| 3. Could the court order lifetime monitoring absent statutory authority (versus a term of years)? | The State: Court could impose lifetime monitoring based on individualized findings (risk/aggravating factors). | Billings: Lifetime monitoring is unauthorized without statutory basis. | Court: Did not decide the statutory-duration issue due to lack of jurisdiction. |
| 4. Was counsel required/appointed for the 2020 hearing under relevant statutes? | The State: Proceeding as a review hearing was permissible without new appointment. | Billings: Statutes required appointment of counsel for such proceedings; none was appointed. | Court: Did not resolve counsel question because the hearing was void for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019) (held mandatory lifetime satellite-based monitoring unconstitutional as applied to unsupervised recidivists and enjoined such applications)
- State v. Clayton, 206 N.C. App. 300, 697 S.E.2d 428 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (trial court lacked authority to hold another monitoring hearing based on same reportable convictions)
- State v. Bursell, 372 N.C. 196, 827 S.E.2d 302 (N.C. 2019) (vacating monitoring order without prejudice to State’s ability to file appropriate application)
- State v. Brooks, 204 N.C. App. 193, 693 S.E.2d 204 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (describing satellite-based monitoring program as a civil regulatory scheme)
- State v. Wooten, 194 N.C. App. 524, 669 S.E.2d 749 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (proceedings without subject-matter jurisdiction are nullities)
- In re McKinney, 158 N.C. App. 441, 581 S.E.2d 793 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (jurisdiction depends on existence of a valid pleading invoking judicial power)