State v. Hunt
221 N.C. App. 48
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hunt was indicted on six counts of statutory rape/sexual offense involving his 13-year-old half-sister.
- He pled guilty on 14 April 2011, with six charges consolidated for sentencing; he received 300–369 months and habitual felon charge was dismissed.
- The State requested a Convicted Sex Offender Permanent No Contact Order under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A-1340.50, claiming victim's fear and offender's access to victim’s information.
- The court issued a No Contact Order prohibiting contact and related conduct for life, incorporating the judgment and AOC-CR-615; defendant acknowledged no-contact terms.
- The prosecutor indicated a possible later classification as a sexually violent predator; SBM/registration aspects were to be determined later; order logged in defendant’s criminal file.
- Hunt filed a pro se notice of appeal on 26 April 2011; appellate counsel later assigned; court granted certiorari to review civil nature of the order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the No Contact Order is civil or punitive | State contends order is civil regulatory remedy, not punishment. | Hunt argues it constitutes criminal punishment prohibited by Article XI, §1 of NC Constitution. | Order is civil; not a criminal punishment. |
| Due process notice for seeking No Contact Order | State need not give advance notice; statute provides opportunity to show cause at sentencing. | Hunt asserts lack of notice violated due process. | No notice requirement; due process not violated. |
| Double jeopardy implications of imposing No Contact Order after imprisonment | No double jeopardy since order is civil; separate remedy. | No explicit argument beyond preservation; potential punitive effect. | No double jeopardy since No Contact Order is civil. |
| Statutory procedure compliance for entering the No Contact Order | Court properly complied with 15A-1340.50(b), (e), (g) including findings of fact and grounds. | Arguments of incomplete form and missing registration considerations undermine compliance. | Court complied with statutory framework. |
| Proper preservation and scope of appellate review | Civil nature permits certiorari relief; timely review in interest of justice. | Rule 3(a) compliance needed unless civil nature clarified. | Certiorari granted; appellate review allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335 (2010) (civil regulatory scheme for SBM; not punitive in purpose or effect)
- State v. White, 162 N.C.App. 183 (2004) (SBM and registration civil in nature)
- State v. Stines, 200 N.C.App. 193 (2009) (due process considerations for SBM-type proceedings distinguished)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) (framework for civil vs punitive classification of statutes)
- Jarvis v. State, 715 S.E.2d 252 (2011) (due process not violated when SBM hearing occurs at sentencing)