State v. SpringleÂ, 244 N.C. App. 760

Background

Robert H. Springle pled guilty (4 Sept 2014) to two counts of felonious indecent exposure involving victims under 16 and agreed to a split sentence; Judge Alford accepted the plea.
At the plea hearing Judge Alford orally found Springle to be a "recidivist" and stated he was subject to lifetime satellite-based monitoring (SBM), but did not reduce those findings to the AOC-CR615 or other written findings.
A later "bring-back" hearing (10 Nov 2014) before Judge Jenkins resulted in a written order requiring lifetime sex-offender registration and lifetime SBM; the State relied on a prior record worksheet showing out-of-state convictions but introduced no out-of-state statutes or detailed proof of substantial similarity.
Springle’s notice of appeal had defective service; he petitioned for certiorari, which this Court granted because the State conceded no prejudice.
On appeal Springle argued (1) the recidivist finding was unsupported because the State failed to prove by competent evidence that his out-of-state convictions were substantially similar to North Carolina offenses, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Springle)	Held
Whether the trial court had competent evidence to find Springle a "recidivist" for SBM	The State asserted Springle’s prior record worksheet and oral statements established recidivist status and lifetime SBM	Springle argued the State failed to prove his out‑of‑state convictions were "substantially similar" to NC offenses and the court made no specific findings tying particular prior convictions to recidivist status	Court held the State failed to prove substantial similarity and the trial court made insufficient findings; remanded for resentencing
Whether a defendant’s stipulation to a prior record worksheet can establish substantial similarity for out‑of‑state convictions	State contended admissible records and counsel’s statements were sufficient	Springle countered stipulation cannot resolve the legal question of substantial similarity	Court held stipulations are ineffective on questions of law; the State must prove substantial similarity with appropriate evidence
Whether oral findings (not reduced to writing) can support SBM order on appeal	State relied on oral findings made at plea hearing	Springle contended oral findings not reduced to the written order cannot support appellate review	Court held oral findings not reduced to the record are insufficient and cannot support the SBM order on appeal
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel is available in SBM appeals	State argued SBM is civil so IAC claim is unavailable	Springle raised IAC claim regarding counsel’s handling of appeal	Court dismissed IAC claim as unavailable in SBM (civil) proceedings

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wright, 210 N.C. App. 52 (trial court must have evidence to classify out‑of‑state convictions; remand required when State fails to prove substantial similarity)
State v. Burgess, 216 N.C. App. 54 (stipulations cannot resolve the legal question whether an out‑of‑state offense is substantially similar to a NC offense)
State v. Kilby, 198 N.C. App. 363 (standards of review for SBM findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Griffith v. N.C. Dep’t of Corr., 210 N.C. App. 544 (oral orders not reduced to writing are non‑existent for appellate purposes)
Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708 (trial court must make detailed and specific findings of fact; findings must support conclusions)
State v. Wagoner, 199 N.C. App. 321 (SBM is civil; ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims not available in SBM appeals)