State v. Pressley, 235 N.C. App. 613

Defendant Anthony Pressley, a convicted sex offender, was released from prison on 23 April 2012 and registered with the Rowan County Sheriff, listing his mother’s address at 364 Culbertson Estate’s Drive, Woodleaf, NC.
On 4 June 2012, he signed an additional verification form continuing to list the same address, at the direction of the SBI.
Chief Allen of the Town of Cleveland later investigated and learned from Rankin that Pressley did not live at the registered address and had used it as an address to provide law enforcement.
Rankin and other witnesses stated Pressley had not resided at the 364 Culbertson Drive address for extended periods and had stayed with Rankin or others for short periods after release.
On 29 October 2012, Pressley was indicted on two counts of failure to register as a sex offender for submitting false information on the 23 April 2012 and 4 June 2012 forms; trial occurred 11 June 2013 resulting in two convictions and concurrent sentences of 23–37 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 4 June 2012 form was required by statute	State argues §14-208.9A requires verification within three days and that falsified forms violate §14-208.11.	Pressley contends the 4 June form was not statutorily required under §14-208.9A because it is not within the six-month verification timetable.	No error; form requirement is broader than timetable and falsified information violates §14-208.11.
Plain error from failing to instruct about §14-208.9A timetable	State maintains error not plain given the earlier ruling on form requirement.	Pressley argues the jury should have been instructed that the 4 June form was not required per the timetable.	No plain error; instruction unnecessary in light of the §14-208.9A interpretation.
Whether two convictions constitute a continuing offense	State contends each false form submission is a separate violation.	Pressley asserts a single continuing offense for submitting false information twice.	Two separate offenses; no double jeopardy error.

State v. Smith, 186 N.C. App. 57 (2007) (motion to dismiss de novo review; essential elements shown)
State v. Fritsch, 351 N.C. 373 (2000) (standard for dismissal if elements proven)
State v. McClary, 198 N.C. App. 169 (2009) (plain error review limits)
State v. Jones, 359 N.C. 832 (2005) (avoid absurd results; use common sense in statutory construction)
State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506 (2012) (plain error standard for instructional issues)