{
  "id": 4131972,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF LACY DUNN",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Dunn",
  "decision_date": "2013-01-15",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-656",
  "first_page": "43",
  "last_page": "45",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. App. 43"
    }
  ],
  "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": "660 S.E.2d 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12640938
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/660/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E.2d 103",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549972
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "169"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E.2d 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "808"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568279
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 S.E.2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "183",
          "parenthetical": "\"It should be noted that this jurisdictional question was not raised before the able trial judge, nor was it raised in the briefs filed in this court. Nevertheless, where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the record, this court must note it ex mero mo tu.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551387
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "593",
          "parenthetical": "\"It should be noted that this jurisdictional question was not raised before the able trial judge, nor was it raised in the briefs filed in this court. Nevertheless, where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the record, this court must note it ex mero mo tu.\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4158700
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "650"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/190/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 5250,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.13337032390691503
    },
    "sha256": "c4cab8613cf595b63a6962e912718469c5a3aedebb4ed8fc4a797dd5f436d647",
    "simhash": "1:0d376af5be858b7a",
    "word_count": 836
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:03.865649+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GEER and STEPHENS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF LACY DUNN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nLacy Dunn (\u201cpetitioner\u201d) appeals from the trial court\u2019s denial of his petition for termination of his sex offender registration. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.\nI. Background\nPetitioner was convicted of attempted second-degree sex offense in Montgomery County on 3 November 1994 and initially registered as a sex offender in North Carolina on 2 January 1997. On 18 January 2011, petitioner petitioned Cumberland County Superior Court to terminate his sex offender registration pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.12A. Petitioner\u2019s petition came on for hearing 6 December 2011 in Cumberland County Superior Court before the Honorable Gregory A. Weeks.\nAt the hearing, the State introduced evidence that petitioner was convicted on 21 September 2011 on charges of failing to register as a sex offender and possession of stolen property. In addition to the specific convictions introduced by the State, petitioner\u2019s complete criminal record was entered into evidence for the trial court\u2019s review. Petitioner\u2019s criminal record indicates that petitioner was arrested, but not convicted, for multiple offenses for which he would have been required to register as a sex offender if he had been convicted, including second-degree rape.\nFollowing the hearing, the trial judge entered an order denying petitioner the requested relief and requiring petitioner to maintain registration. The trial court\u2019s denial was mandated based on its inability to find that \u201c[s]ince the completion of [his] sentence . . . , the petitioner has not been arrested for any offense that would require registration under Article 27A of Chapter 14[,]\u201d \u201c[t]he petitioner is not a current or potential threat to public safety[,]\u201d and \u201c[t]he relief requested by petitioner complies with the provisions of the federal Jacob Wetterling Act... and any other federal standards applicable to the termination of a registration requirement or required to be met as a condition of the receipt of federal funds by the State.\u201d Defendant appeals.\nII. Analysis\nOn appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.12A(al)(l) on grounds of due process and equal protection and additionally contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner\u2019s petition to terminate his sex offender registration. Upon review of the record, we are unable to reach the merits of this case.\n\u201cIt is well-established that the issue of a court\u2019s jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by a court sua sponte.\u201d State v. Webber, 190 N.C. App. 649, 650, 660 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2008); see also State v. Morrow, 31 N.C. App. 592, 593, 230 S.E.2d 182, 183 (1976) (\u201cIt should be noted that this jurisdictional question was not raised before the able trial judge, nor was it raised in the briefs filed in this court. Nevertheless, where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the record, this court must note it ex mero mo tu.\u201d). Where the court lacks jurisdiction, dismissal is appropriate. Burgess v. Gibbs, 262 N.C. 462, 465, 137 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1964).\nIn the present case, we find that the Cumberland County Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to decide petitioner\u2019s petition to terminate his sex offender registration.\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.12A, where \u201cthe reportable conviction is for an offense that occurred in North Carolina, the petition shall be filed in the district where the person was convicted of the offense.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-208.12A(a) (2011). As evident from the record, defendant was ordered to register as a sex offender as a result of his 3 November 1994 conviction in Montgomery County for attempted second-degree sex offense. Therefore, defendant was required to file his petition to terminate his sex offender registration in Montgomery County. Petitioner, however, filed his petition in Cumberland County. By statute, the Cumberland County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the 6 December 2011 order denying petitioner\u2019s petition.\n\u201cWhen a court decides a matter without the court\u2019s having jurisdiction, then the whole proceeding is null and void, i.e., as if it had never happened.\u201d Hopkins v. Hopkins, 8 N.C. App. 162, 169, 174 S.E.2d 103, 108 (1970).\nIII. Conclusion\nFor the reasons set forth above, the appeal is dismissed and the order of the trial court is vacated.\nDismissed and vacated.\nJudges GEER and STEPHENS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCullough, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General William R Hart, Jr., for the State.",
      "Parish & Cooke, by James R. Parish, for petitioner appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF LACY DUNN\nNo. COA12-656\nFiled 15 January 2013\nSexual Offenders \u2014 request to terminate sex offender registration \u2014 jurisdiction\u2014must be filed in district where convicted\nPetitioner\u2019s appeal from the denial of his petition for termination of his sex offender registration was dismissed. The superior court did not have jurisdiction to decide the petition because defendant was required to file his petition in the district where he was convicted of the offense.\nAppeal by petitioner from order entered 6 December 2011 by Judge Gregory A. Weeks in Cumberland County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 October 2012.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General William R Hart, Jr., for the State.\nParish & Cooke, by James R. Parish, for petitioner appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0043-01",
  "first_page_order": 53,
  "last_page_order": 55
}