{ "id": 4179537, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LLOYD MAY, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. May", "decision_date": "2010-09-21", "docket_number": "No. COA10-140", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "263", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 N.C. App. 260" } ], "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": "656 S.E.2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12640369 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Linemann, 135 N.C. App. 734, 738, 522 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/656/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878", "parenthetical": "quoting, but not explicitly adopting, Black's Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12123845 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "202", "parenthetical": "quoting, but not explicitly adopting, Black's Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "522 S.E.2d 781", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 N.C. App. 734", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11242869 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/135/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 N.C. App. 842", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4155675 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "845", "parenthetical": "quoting State v. Linemann, 135 N.C. App. 734, 738, 522 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1999)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/188/0842-01" ] }, { "cite": "693 S.E.2d 192", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "493 S.E.2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551138, 551077, 551207, 551251, 551284 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0263-05", "/nc/347/0263-03", "/nc/347/0263-02", "/nc/347/0263-04", "/nc/347/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 800", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11713506 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "802" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0800-01" ] }, { "cite": "693 S.E.2d 204", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "206", "parenthetical": "alteration in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "677 S.E.2d 518", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "689 S.E.2d 562", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "534 S.E.2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "350 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 131936, 132196, 132203, 132301, 131984 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/350/0309-02", "/nc/350/0309-05", "/nc/350/0309-01", "/nc/350/0309-04", "/nc/350/0309-03" ] }, { "cite": "510 S.E.2d 177", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "177" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11236901 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0042-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 445, "char_count": 8607, "ocr_confidence": 0.704, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.665651525889828e-08, "percentile": 0.40590435967502353 }, "sha256": "2dc2be597c014bbbf6a5a664470492c464072572e7ac14e388a7da6ac282a90b", "simhash": "1:8b2f21c4476e8e6a", "word_count": 1424 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:56:31.092499+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STROUD and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LLOYD MAY, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nDefendant Robert Lloyd May appeals from the trial court\u2019s order requiring him to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring (\u201cSBM\u201d) program for the duration of his natural life.\nOn 25 August 2009, defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1. The trial court found that defendant had twelve prior record level points and determined he was a level IV violator. The trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum of 25 months and a maximum of 30 months imprisonment. In a subsequent hearing later that day, the trial court determined that defendant\u2019s offense was a reportable conviction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.6. The trial court first instructed the clerk to mark Box 1(a) on the Administrative Office of the Courts\u2019 Form AOC-CR-615, indicating that the reportable conviction was an offense against a minor. The trial court then corrected itself and instructed that Box 1(b) should be marked instead, indicating that the reportable conviction was a sexually violent offense. However, the court\u2019s correction during the rendition of its order was not reflected on the form. The trial court also determined that defendant qualified as a recidivist under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.6(2b). Accordingly, the trial court ordered defendant to enroll in a lifetime SBM program at the end of his incarceration. Defendant purported to appeal from this order by giving oral notice of appeal in open court.\nRule 3 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure sets forth the requirements to appeal in a civil action, and provides that parties wishing to appeal \u201cmay take appeal by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court and serving copies thereof upon all other parties within the time prescribed by subdivision (c) of this rule.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 3(a) (amended Oct. 1, 2009). While Appellate Rule 4 provides, in part, that a defendant in a criminal proceeding \u201cmay take appeal by... giving oral notice of appeal at trial,\u201d see N.C.R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (amended Oct. 1, 2009), \u201coral notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court in a civil action.\u201d Melvin v. St. Louis, 132 N.C. App. 42, 43, 510 S.E.2d 177, 177, cert. denied, 350 N.C. 309, 534 S.E.2d 594 (1999).\nThis Court has previously determined that satellite-based monitoring is a civil remedy, not a criminal punishment. See State v. Singleton, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 689 S.E.2d 562, 565, disc. review allowed, 364 N.C. 131, \u2014S.E.2d \u2014 (2010); State v. Bare, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 677 S.E.2d 518, 527 (2009). Therefore, when a defendant seeks to appeal from an order requiring him to enroll in an SBM program, this Court has held that \u201coral notice pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 4(a)(1) is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Instead, a defendant must give notice of appeal pursuant to N.C.R. App. P. 3(a) as is proper \u2018in a civil action or special proceeding].]\u2019 \u201d State v. Brooks, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 693 S.E.2d 204, 206 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting N.C.R. App. P. 3(a)).\nIn the present case, an examination of the record shows that defendant purported to give oral notice of appeal in open court from the trial court\u2019s 25 August 2009 order, rather than written notice of appeal in accordance with the requirements of Rule 3. Since defendant failed to give timely written notice of appeal from the court\u2019s 25 August 2009 order, and since \u201c[t]he provisions of Rule 3 are jurisdictional, and failure to follow the requirements thereof requires dismissal of an appeal,\u201d see Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C. App. 800, 802, 486 S.E.2d 735, 737, disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 263, 493 S.E.2d 450 (1997), we must dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAlthough defendant has lost his right to appeal from the court\u2019s order requiring him to enroll in a lifetime SBM program, this. Court may, in its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari \u201cwhen the right to prosecute an appeal has been lost by failure to take timely action.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1) (amended Oct. 1, 2009). Accordingly, we treat defendant\u2019s brief as a petition for writ of certiorari and allow it for the purpose of considering his contentions upon their merits.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by indicating that defendant was convicted of the reportable conviction of \u201can offense against a minor\u201d on the Administrative Office of the Courts\u2019 Form AOC-CR-615, entitled \u201cJudicial Findings and Order for Sex Offenders\u2014 Active Punishment.\u201d Defendant was convicted upon a guilty plea of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1. According to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.6(5), the offense of taking indecent liberties with a child in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-202.1 is defined as a \u201csexually violent offense,\u201d which is a reportable conviction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.6(4). When the court rendered its 25 August 2009 order in open court, the court first mistakenly stated that defendant\u2019s reportable offense was an offense against a minor, which is the subject of Box 1(a) in the \u201cFindings\u201d section of Form AOC-CR-615. Although the court immediately realized its error and instructed that Box 1(b) should be marked to indicate that \u201cthe defendant has been convicted of a reportable conviction under G.S. 14-208.6, specifically... a sexually violent offense under G.S. 14-208.6(5),\u201d the form included in the record indicates that Box 1(a), rather than Box 1(b), was marked on the order signed by the court.\n\u201cWe realize that in the process of checking boxes on form orders, it is possible for the wrong box to be marked inadvertently, creating a clerical error which can be corrected upon remand.\u201d State v. Yow, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, \u2014, 693 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2010). \u201cWhen, on appeal, a clerical error is discovered in the trial court\u2019s judgment or order, it is appropriate to remand the case to the trial court for correction because of the importance that the record \u2018speak the truth.\u2019 \u201d State v. Smith, 188 N.C. App. 842, 845, 656 S.E.2d 695, 696 (2008) (quoting State v. Linemann, 135 N.C. App. 734, 738, 522 S.E.2d 781, 784 (1999)). A \u201cclerical error\u201d has been defined as \u201c[a]n error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence, [especially] in writing or copying something on the record, and not from judicial reasoning or determination.\u201d State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 202, 535 S.E.2d 875, 878 (2000) (quoting, but not explicitly adopting, Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 563 (7th ed. 1999)). Since, in the present case, it appears the court\u2019s error in marking Box 1(a) instead of Box 1(b) was clerical in nature, and since defendant admits that he pled guilty to one count of taking indecent liberties with a child, which he concedes is a \u201csexually violent offense,\u201d we remand this matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error on Form AOC-CR-615 by marking Box 1(b) and unmarking Box 1(a).\nDefendant\u2019s remaining contentions concern issues that defendant concedes have already been resolved by this Court. As he advances no further or alternative legal argument in support of these issues and purports only to \u201cpreserve\u201d these issues \u201cfor further review,\u201d we decline to address defendant\u2019s remaining contentions. The order requiring defendant to enroll in lifetime satellite-based monitoring upon his release from incarceration is affirmed. This matter is remanded for correction of the clerical error noted herein.\nAffirmed; remanded for correction of clerical errors.\nJudges STROUD and ERVIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper; Attorney General, by Oliver G. Wheeler, IV, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Jon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT LLOYD MAY, Defendant\nNo. COA10-140\n(Filed 21 September 2010)\n1. Satellite-Based Monitoring\u2014 clerical error\nThe Court of Appeals treated defendant\u2019s brief as a petition for writ of certiorari and determined that the trial court did not err by requiring him to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring program for the duration of his natural life upon his release from incarceration. The case was remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error on Form AOC-CR-615 by marking Box 1(b) and unmarking Box 1(a).\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to argue\nThe Court of Appeals declined to address defendant\u2019s remaining issues that he conceded had already been resolved by the Court of Appeals. Defendant failed to advance any further arguments.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 25 August 2009 by Judge James E. Hardin, Jr. in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 August 2010.\nRoy Cooper; Attorney General, by Oliver G. Wheeler, IV, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 284, "last_page_order": 287 }