Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
About
This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.
Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.
Instructions
Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).
(1) Although the State presented no evidence at the bring-back hearing establishing that the defendant received proper notice by certified mail of the hearing or that he received notice of the basis upon which the State believed him eligible for SBM, by failing to object to the trial court’s findings at the hearing, the defendant waived the right to challenge them on appeal. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to conduct the hearing. The defendant argued that there was no competent evidence that he resided in the county where the hearing was held. G.S. 14-208.40B(b)’s requirement that an SBM hearing be brought in the county in which the offender resides addresses venue, not subject matter jurisdiction and therefore the defendant’s failure to object at the hearing waived this argument on appeal.
(1) The DOC gave sufficient notice of a SBM hearing when its letter informed the defendant of both the hearing date and applicable statutory category. (2) The court rejected the defendant’s argument that SBM infringed on his constitutional right to travel.
G.S. 14-208.40B (procedure for determining SBM eligibility when eligibility was not determined when judgment was imposed) applies to SBM proceedings initiated after December 1, 2007, even if those proceedings involve offenders who had been sentenced or had committed the offenses that resulted in SBM eligibility before that date. The defendant received a probationary sentence for solicitation of indecent liberties on August 30, 2007 and thus was subject to SBM requirements, which apply to any offender sentenced to intermediate punishment on or after August 16, 2006. He challenged the trial court’s later order requiring him to enroll in SBM, arguing that G.S. 14-208.40B did not apply to offenses committed prior to December 1, 2007, the statute’s effective date.