State v. Ricks, 843 S.E.2d 652

Background

Two 12-year-old girls (N.M. and J.C.) had repeated sexual contact with Johnathan Ricks in 2016; acts included oral and vaginal sex; one rape kit contained sperm matching Ricks by DNA testing.
Ricks (born 1995) voluntarily provided a DNA sample; forensic testimony gave a random-match probability of ~1 in 9.42 nonillion (African‑American population) for the profile.
A Harnett County jury convicted Ricks of three counts of statutory rape of a child, two counts of statutory sex offense with a child, and three counts of taking indecent liberties with a child; three kidnapping counts were dismissed; Ricks was sentenced to 300–420 months’ imprisonment.
At sentencing the court ordered lifetime sex‑offender registration and lifetime satellite‑based monitoring (SBM) for the statutory‑rape/sex‑offense convictions, and 30‑year registration plus a risk assessment for the indecent‑liberties counts—without an evidentiary Grady hearing on SBM.
Ricks appealed and petitioned for certiorari to review the SBM order; he argued (1) prosecutorial misconduct in closing and (2) the lifetime SBM order violated the Fourth Amendment because the State produced no evidence to show SBM is a reasonable search as applied to him.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ricks' Argument	Held
Prosecutor's closing remarks (comments on defendant's silence, jury sympathy, DNA statistics, witness credibility)	Remarks were permissible or, if problematic, harmless given overwhelming evidence	Remarks violated Ricks' constitutional rights (comment on silence, improper appeal to sympathy, prosecutor's fallacy, impermissible credibility opinion)	Reversal not warranted; court found any improper remarks harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the strong evidence of guilt
Lifetime SBM imposed without a Grady hearing; Fourth Amendment challenge	SBM was mandated by statute for aggravated/sexually‑violent offenses; State contended Grady III distinctions limited applicability	Imposition of lifetime SBM without a hearing or evidence violated the Fourth Amendment because the State did not prove SBM is a reasonable, proportionate search as applied to Ricks	Majority invoked Rule 2 and vacated the lifetime SBM order as unconstitutional as applied; vacatur without prejudice to the State to reapply after a proper hearing
Appellate procedure: failure to file written notice of appeal / preservation of constitutional objection	Procedural default: Ricks failed to give Rule 3 written notice of appeal and did not preserve the SBM constitutional challenge at sentencing; Rule 2 and certiorari should not be used to excuse defaults	Ricks sought certiorari and asked the court to invoke Rule 2 to reach the SBM merits despite preservation/default failures	Majority exercised discretion to allow certiorari and invoke Rule 2 (finding the Fourth Amendment right substantial and factual parallels to precedent); separate concurrence/dissent argued Rule 2 should not be invoked and the SBM claim should be dismissed for procedural default

Key Cases Cited

Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. 306 (2015) (SBM is a Fourth Amendment search because it physically intrudes to obtain information)
State v. Grady, 372 N.C. 509, 831 S.E.2d 542 (2019) (Grady III) (balancing framework; State must show SBM reasonable under totality of circumstances)
State v. Bursell, 372 N.C. 196, 827 S.E.2d 302 (2019) (Bursell II) (discussing Rule 2 and factors for invoking appellate discretion)
State v. Bursell, 258 N.C. App. 527, 813 S.E.2d 463 (2018) (Bursell I) (vacating SBM order where no Grady hearing was held)
State v. Gordon, 261 N.C. App. 247, 820 S.E.2d 339 (2018) (trial court must conduct a hearing and evaluate SBM reasonableness)
State v. Blue, 246 N.C. App. 259, 783 S.E.2d 524 (2016) (State bears burden to justify SBM)
State v. Griffin, 260 N.C. App. 629, 818 S.E.2d 336 (2018) (Grady framework applies beyond narrow categories; courts should analyze privacy intrusion and State interest)
State v. Larry, 345 N.C. 497, 481 S.E.2d 907 (1997) (comments on defendant's silence impermissible)
State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 358 S.E.2d 1 (1987) (prosecutorial appeals to jury sympathy must not distract jury from guilt/innocence focus)
McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010) (explains the "prosecutor's fallacy" in DNA‑statistic argument)