{
  "id": 4347735,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HUEY DEWAYNE SELF",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Self",
  "decision_date": "2011-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA11-839",
  "first_page": "638",
  "last_page": "640",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. App. 638"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "715 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2011,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "257"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "700 S.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "13"
        },
        {
          "page": "13",
          "parenthetical": "holding that the SBM program is a civil regulatory scheme that does not implicate constitutional protections against ex post facto laws"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "364 N.C. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4152728
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "352"
        },
        {
          "page": "352"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/364/0335-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 5036,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32304238586882866
    },
    "sha256": "d1bd34e9e2739cb42e2c990f8552a9811278c6423ed2caf816840d32de331015",
    "simhash": "1:0e1b988b152ef541",
    "word_count": 780
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:07:22.966851+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HUEY DEWAYNE SELF"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nHuey Dewayne Self (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals the trial court\u2019s order requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring (\u201cSBM\u201d) for the remainder of his natural life. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn 28 November 1983, defendant was convicted of the offense of third degree criminal sexual conduct in Charleston County, South Carolina. On 14 October 2004, defendant pled guilty to one count of attempted second degree sexual offense and one count of assault on a female. The trial court sentenced defendant to an active term of imprisonment of a minimum of 71 months to a maximum of 95 months in the North Carolina Department of Correction (\u201cNCDOC\u201d).\nDefendant was released from NCDOC on 16 July 2010. Prior to his release, NCDOC notified defendant, via a letter delivered by defendant\u2019s probation officer, that he would be subject to an SBM determination hearing. An SBM determination hearing was conducted on 9 February 2011 in Buncombe County Superior Court. The trial court found that defendant was a recidivist and ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals.\nII. Subject Matter Jurisdiction\nDefendant argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conduct an SBM determination hearing because NCDOC did not file a complaint or issue a summons to defendant as required by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. We disagree.\nDefendant is correct that our Supreme Court has held that the SBM program is a civil regulatory scheme. See State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010). However, contrary to defendant\u2019s contention, SBM hearings are not required to be initiated pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of Civil Procedure \u201cgovern the procedure in the superior and district courts of the State of North Carolina in all actions and proceedings of a civil nature except when a differing procedure is prescribed by statute.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 1 (2009)(emphasis added). As this Court has previously stated, \u201cour General Assembly devised a separate procedure for determining eligibility for SBM and clearly granted the Superior Courts subject matter jurisdiction to conduct these determinations pursuant to specific statutory procedures.\u201d State v. Jarvis, _ N.C. App. _, _, 715 S.E.2d 252, 257 (2011).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.40B (b) (2009), which governs the notification procedure for an offender when there was no previous SBM determination at sentencing, does not require NCDOC to either file a complaint or issue a summons in order to provide a defendant with adequate notice of an SBM determination hearing. Moreover, defendant does not contend that the letter from NCDOC failed to comply with the notification provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.40B (b). Accordingly, we must conclude that NCDOC properly initiated defendant\u2019s SBM determination hearing, and that, as a result, the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. This argument is overruled.\nIII. Ex Post Facto\nDefendant argues that the imposition of lifetime SBM constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment. As defendant concedes, our Supreme Court has previously rejected this precise argument. See Bowditch, 364 N.C. at 352, 700 S.E.2d at 13 (holding that the SBM program is a civil regulatory scheme that does not implicate constitutional protections against ex post facto laws). Since this Court is bound by Bowditch, defendant\u2019s argument must be overruled.\nIV. Conclusion\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.40B (b) does not require NCDOC to file a complaint or issue a summons in order to initiate an SBM determination hearing. The SBM program, as a civil regulatory scheme, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto punishment. The trial court\u2019s order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges BRYANT and STROUD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lisa Y Harper, for the State.",
      "Jon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HUEY DEWAYNE SELF\nNo. COA11-839\n(Filed 20 December 2011)\n1. Satellite-Based Monitoring \u2014 subject matter jurisdiction\u2014 notification procedure\nThe trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to conduct a satellite-based monitoring (SBM) determination hearing. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-208.40B(b), which governs the notification procedure for an offender when there was no previous SBM determination at sentencing, does not require the North Carolina Department of Correction to either file a complaint or issue a summons in order to provide a defendant with adequate notice of an SBM determination hearing.\n2. Appeal and Error \u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 constitutional issue already settled\nOur Supreme Court has previously rejected the argument that the imposition of lifetime satellite-based monitoring constituted an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 9 February 2011 by Judge Mark E. Powell in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 November 2011.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Lisa Y Harper, for the State.\nJon W. Myers, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0638-01",
  "first_page_order": 648,
  "last_page_order": 650
}