{
  "id": 4172092,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAYMOND CHARLES HAGERMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hagerman",
  "decision_date": "2009-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. COA09-145",
  "first_page": "614",
  "last_page": "616",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. App. 614"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "530 U.S. 466",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9413911
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "476"
        },
        {
          "page": "446",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/530/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-208.40-45",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 U.S. 466",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9413911
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "476",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "446",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/530/0466-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 4543,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1366676203902235
    },
    "sha256": "b6296ed3bc7ecdfc77be4d06be18ba05f667574f7f06a6d7041f5a778620d5c2",
    "simhash": "1:4989542ae74f3c45",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:34:12.558956+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge BRYANT concurs.",
      "Judge ELMORE dissents in a separate opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAYMOND CHARLES HAGERMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nRaymond Charles Hagerman (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals the trial court\u2019s order directing him to enroll in lifetime satellite-based monitoring (\u201cSBM\u201d) pursuant' to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.40B (2007). We affirm. .\nOn 15 October 2008, defendant pled no contest to four counts of indecent liberties with a minor. Defendant was sentenced to four consecutive active sentences of a minimum of 16 months to a maximum of 20 months in the North Carolina Department of Correction. Two of these sentences were suspended and defendant was sentenced to two consecutive probationary sentences of 36 months each to be served at the end of his active sentences. After sentencing, the trial court conducted a determination hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.40B (2007) to determine whether defendant was eligible for SBM. Prior to the hearing, defendant filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 14-208.40-45 (2007). The trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion. After a hearing, the trial court found that defendant\u2019s offenses were aggravated and ordered defendant to enroll in lifetime SBM. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant argues that, pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), the imposition of lifetime SBM constituted an enhancement of defendant\u2019s punishment. He further argues that the trial court\u2019s determination required facts not presented in the indictment, conceded by defendant, or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of defendant\u2019s constitutional rights. We disagree.\n\u201c[A]ny fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged'in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 476, 147 L. Ed. 2d. at 446 (citation omitted). This Court has analyzed the SBM statutes in State v. Bare and determined that the imposition of lifetime SBM by the legislature was part of a civil, regulatory scheme and not a criminal punishment. State v. Bare, - N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2009); see also State v. Wagoner, - N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2009); State v. Morrow, - N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2009); State v. Stines, - N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, \u2014 (2009). Therefore, the imposition of SBM, as a civil remedy, could not increase the maximum penalty for defendant\u2019s crime. The State did not need to present any facts in an indictment or prove any facts beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury in order to subject defendant to SBM.\nThe record on appeal includes, additional assignments of error not addressed by defendant in his brief to this Court. Pursuant' to N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6) (2008), we deem them abandoned and need not address them.\nAffirmed.\nJudge BRYANT concurs.\nJudge ELMORE dissents in a separate opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "ELMORE, Judge,\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent from the majority opinion affirming the trial court\u2019s order requiring defendant to enroll in satellite-based monitoring. I would reverse and remand the trial court\u2019s order for the reasons stated by my dissents in State v. Wagoner, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014 S.E.2d -, \u2014 (2009) (Elmore, J., dissenting), State v. Morrow, - N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2009) (Elmore, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and State v. Vogt, \u2014 N.C. App. -, -, - S.E.2d -, - (2009) (Elmore, J., dissenting). For the reasons stated therein, I would hold that enrolling defendant in lifetime satellite-based monitoring after finding that his offenses were aggravated increases the maximum penalty for his crime and must, under Apprendi, \u201cbe charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 446 (2000) (citation omitted).",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "ELMORE, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.",
      "Jon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RAYMOND CHARLES HAGERMAN\nNo. COA09-145\n(Filed 3 November 2009)\nSexual Offenders\u2014 satellite-based monitoring \u2014 civil penalty \u2014 not punishment enhancement\nThe State did not need to present any fact in an indictment or to prove any facts beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury in order to subject defendant to satellite-based monitoring (SBM). The imposition of SBM is a civil remedy which does not increase the maximum penalty for defendant\u2019s crime.\nJudge ELMORE dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 15 October 2008 by Judge Thomas H. Lock in Onslow County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 August 2009.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.\nJon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0614-01",
  "first_page_order": 640,
  "last_page_order": 642
}