263 N.C. App. 697
N.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Michael Sheridan (44) had an ongoing sexual relationship with T.S. ("Tonya"), who was 14 when it began; the relationship continued after she moved in with him and after she turned 16. DNA linked Defendant as the father of a child born to Tonya.
- Tonya lived with Defendant; he provided food, clothing, a bank card, a phone, and represented a parental/supervisory role to others (called her his "daughter," said he was her "godfather").
- After an October 2014 altercation in which Tonya stabbed Defendant during a fight, police and a sexual assault exam took place; Tonya disclosed prior sexual activity and pregnancy history.
- Defendant was indicted on multiple counts including four counts of first-degree sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of statutory rape, one count of sexual offense in a parental role, and other charges; some charges were later dismissed and he was convicted on several counts by a jury in March 2017.
- Sentences were imposed (multiple long consecutive terms); the court ordered lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM) and Defendant was required to register as a sex offender. Defendant appealed; he also filed a pro se speedy trial motion while represented by counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for "parental role" charge (sexual offense in a parental role) | State: evidence showed Defendant assumed parental role (support, representations, living arrangement) | Sheridan: no parent-child relationship; victim over 16 and relationship was consensual | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of parental-role factors (trust, support, representations) to submit to jury |
| Denial of pro se speedy trial motion | State: trial court properly denied motion; defendant was represented and court considered the motion | Sheridan: trial court denied speedy trial without addressing Barker v. Wingo factors | Remanded: 28-month delay was presumptively prejudicial; trial court erred by failing to apply Barker factors and make findings; remand for evidentiary hearing and findings |
| Denial of mistrial after expert's remark about Defendant's "history of criminality" | State: remark was cured by immediate strike and jury instruction | Sheridan: remark was inherently prejudicial and required mistrial | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; instruction to disregard was sufficient under circumstances |
| SBMed lifetime monitoring determination and counsel's alleged ineffective assistance regarding SBM hearing | State: SBM order appropriate because convictions were aggravated | Sheridan: trial court failed to follow statutory procedure and no evidence supported lifetime SBM; counsel said hearing would be pointless | Vacated & remanded: SBM order vacated; remand for proper factfinding under statute (14-208.40A); certiorari granted to review SBM issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay becomes presumptively prejudicial approaching one year)
- State v. Sweat, 366 N.C. 79 (standard for denial of motion to dismiss; substantial evidence review)
- State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95 (evidence reviewed in light most favorable to State)
- State v. Oakley, 167 N.C. App. 318 (parental-role factors: support, trust, holding out)
- State v. Bailey, 163 N.C. App. 84 (parental-role includes emotional trust, disciplinary authority, supervisory responsibility)
- State v. Davison, 201 N.C. App. 354 (procedures for SBM determinations)
- State v. Williams, 363 N.C. 689 (limitations on defendants filing pro se motions while represented)
- State v. Hunt, 287 N.C. 360 (certain prejudicial testimony may not be cured by instruction)
- State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270 (prior-indictment testimony can be incurably prejudicial)