State v. Perez, 854 S.E.2d 15

Background

Defendant (Juan Antonio Perez) assaulted, strangled, and later raped victim D.M.; injuries required hospital treatment; defendant pled guilty to multiple offenses including second-degree rape and forcible sexual offense.
Trial court entered consolidated judgments: active prison terms (24–41 months and 80–156 months) and assessed court costs in two separate judgments.
At a post-plea hearing the court ordered lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM); the State presented probation testimony about the tracking device and defendant’s STATIC-99 risk score but produced no empirical evidence SBM reduces recidivism.
Defendant filed a certiorari petition because he failed to file the required written notice of appeal for the civil SBM order; the Court allowed certiorari to reach the merits.
The Court held lifetime SBM unconstitutional as applied to this defendant under a Grady totality-of-the-circumstances analysis (state failed to show efficacy and intrusion outweighed state interest) and reversed the SBM order.
The Court also vacated duplicative court costs in one judgment (holding charges arose from a single criminal case for cost purposes); a dissent argued defendant forfeited appellate review and that vacatur should be without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lifetime SBM is a reasonable Fourth Amendment search	SBM is minimally intrusive, serves strong public interest in preventing recidivism and deterrence	Lifetime SBM is an unreasonable, lifelong warrantless search; State failed to prove SBM’s efficacy	Reversed: lifetime SBM unconstitutional as applied because State failed to meet burden under Grady totality test
Whether appellate review could proceed despite defective appeal notice	Oral notice was insufficient but State-initiated Grady discussion preserved issue (or certiorari is discretionary)	Certiorari should be allowed because counsel’s failure (not defendant) caused loss of appeal rights	Certiorari granted in discretion; appellate review permitted (court exercised Rule 21 discretion)
Whether SBM intrusion and privacy interests are sufficiently diminished by status and supervision	Defendant’s post-release supervision reduces privacy interests and supports SBM	Although diminished during supervision, privacy is restored later; lifetime intrusion is substantial and uniquely intrusive	Defendant has appreciable privacy interests; intrusion substantial; state failed to show lifetime monitoring reasonable
Whether court costs were duplicative across consolidated judgments	Separate judgments may justify separate costs	Multiple charges arose from same criminal case and were adjudicated together, so costs should not be duplicated	Vacated duplicative costs in one judgment; costs must be proportional to single criminal case (per Rieger)

Key Cases Cited

Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306 (2015) (SBM is a warrantless search requiring Fourth Amendment reasonableness review under the totality of the circumstances)
State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (2019) (N.C. Supreme Court framework; mandatory lifetime SBM unconstitutional as applied to recidivists and guidance for balancing intrusion and state interest)
Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998 (6th Cir. 2007) (court opinion cited for the proposition that monitoring may have a deterrent effect)
State v. Brooks, 204 N.C. App. 193, 693 S.E.2d 204 (2010) (written notice of appeal required for civil SBM orders under Rule 3)
State v. Rieger, 267 N.C. App. 647, 833 S.E.2d 699 (2019) (when multiple charges from same event are adjudicated together they constitute a single criminal case for assessing court costs)
State v. Bursell, 372 N.C. 196, 827 S.E.2d 302 (2019) (proper remedy on vacatur of SBM order is vacatur without prejudice to allow refiling by the State)
State v. Collins, 345 N.C. 170, 478 S.E.2d 191 (1996) (arguments of counsel are not evidence)