State v. Santos
210 N.C. App. 448
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Pedro Lugo Santos,Born in the Dominican Republic, resident in the U.S. since age six.
- Psychological evaluation showed mild depression, anxiety, functional illiteracy, and mild mental retardation; competence with accommodations noted.
- Arrest led to grand jury indictments for first-degree statutory sexual offense, sixteen indecent liberties with children, and crime against nature (2008).
- Plea agreement resulted in guilty pleas to all charges at the 2008 Hoke County session; two judgments were entered due to different offense dates (1988–1993 vs. 2004–2006).
- Life imprisonment was imposed for the first-degree sexual offense with a finding of aggravated offense and lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) upon release; other offenses sentenced under Structured Sentencing Act with consecutive/concurrent arrangements.
- Court remanded the SBM issue for consideration under other categories in N.C.G.S. § 14-208.40A; some related SBM judgments on indecent liberties were deemed abandoned on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. | Lugo Santos contends plea was coerced and not voluntary. | State pressured defendant during a short recess and insufficient reflection time. | Plea was knowing and voluntary. |
| Whether first-degree sexual offense is an aggravated offense for SBM under §14-208.40A. | Davison not controlling; the offense qualifies as aggravated. | Elements, not underlying facts, must define aggravated offense; 14-27.4(a)(1) does not meet 14-208.6(1a). | Trial court erred; first-degree sexual offense under §14-27.4(a)(1) is not an aggravated offense; remanded for consideration under other SBM categories. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davison, 689 S.E.2d 510 (2009) (reaffirmed that SBM eligibility is based on offense elements, not underlying facts)
- State v. Treadway, 702 S.E.2d 335 (2010) (elements-based view of aggravated offense for SBM)
- State v. Phillips, 691 S.E.2d 104 (2010) (illustrates need to distinguish 14-27.4(a)(1) vs. 14-208.6(1a) when determining SBM)
- State v. Richardson, 300 S.E.2d 826 (1983) (harmful error standard for non-compliant §15A-1022 inquiries may be harmless)
- State v. Atkins, 505 S.E.2d 119 (1998) (plea voluntariness requires informed waiver of rights; not rigidly technical)