State v. Jones
231 N.C. App. 123
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Jeffrey Brian Jones pled guilty in 2004 to two counts of taking indecent liberties with a child and one count of failing to register as a sex offender; released from incarceration in 2009.
- In 2012 the Department of Correction determined Jones qualified for satellite-based monitoring (SBM) and the District Attorney scheduled a superior-court SBM hearing in Jones’s county of residence.
- At the 12 December 2012 hearing Jones moved to dismiss, arguing SBM’s retroactive application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and that SBM constituted an unlawful search after United States v. Jones.
- The trial court denied the motion, adopted AOC form findings that Jones was a recidivist and met statutory criteria, and ordered lifetime enrollment in SBM (two identical orders for the two indecent-liberties convictions).
- On appeal Jones challenged (1) sufficiency of notice and related due-process and jurisdictional defects, (2) ex post facto prohibition, and (3) Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of statutory notice / due process / jurisdiction | State: DOC and DA complied with statutory notice requirements; hearing properly scheduled | Jones: record lacks written notice; insufficient notice violated due process and deprived court of jurisdiction | Court: Jones failed to include notice in appellate record; cannot review; arguments dismissed; no prejudice shown |
| Ex post facto challenge to retroactive SBM | State: SBM may be applied under statute | Jones: SBM enacted after offenses; retroactive application is ex post facto | Court: Overruled — State Supreme Court previously held SBM does not violate ex post facto prohibitions (Bowditch) |
| Fourth Amendment — SBM as unreasonable search | State: SBM is civil regulatory scheme and not an unconstitutional search | Jones: Jones (relying on U.S. v. Jones) — ankle monitor is analogous to GPS search | Court: Overruled — Jones (U.S. Supreme Court vehicle-GPS holding) distinguishable; North Carolina appellate precedent (Martin; Bowditch) rejects Fourth Amendment challenge |
| Record-preservation / waiver of constitutional issues | State: Jones did not raise notice/due-process at trial or include documents on appeal | Jones: Appeals court should consider constitutional defects | Held: Procedural default; issues not preserved or record incomplete; constitutional claims not considered anew when not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 700 S.E.2d 1 (2010) (SBM does not violate ex post facto prohibitions)
- State v. Martin, 735 S.E.2d 238 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (rejecting Fourth Amendment challenge to SBM)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (installing GPS on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)
- State v. Lloyd, 354 N.C. 76, 552 S.E.2d 596 (2001) (constitutional issues not raised at trial are generally not considered on appeal)
- In re Appeal from Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 379 S.E.2d 30 (1989) (appellate courts are bound by intervening panel precedent)