Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

March 17, 2015

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
MICQUAN SMITH

Heard in the Court of Appeals: February 4, 2015.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Joseph Finarelli, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.

Edward Eldred, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by Edward Eldred, for defendant-appellant.

STEELMAN, Judge. Judges DIETZ and INMAN concur.

OPINION

Page 839

Appeal by defendant from judgments entered 17 March 2014 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court, Nos. 13 CRS 228504, 13 CRS 228505.

STEELMAN, Judge.

Where the trial court's additional findings of fact were supported by competent record evidence, the trial court did not err in imposing satellite-based monitoring.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On 6 January 2014, Micquan Smith (defendant) pled guilty to indecent liberties with a minor and attempted first-degree burglary, based on offenses committed on 10 July 2013. The trial court deferred sentencing to determine whether satellite-based monitoring (SBM) was required. On 7 February 2014, the State presented evidence that in January of 2012, defendant pled guilty to assault on a child under twelve, and that in September of 2012, defendant was charged with indecent liberties with a minor and indecent exposure, although these charges were voluntarily dismissed by the State prior to trial.

On 7 March 2014, the State presented the results of the Static-99 examination of defendant, which indicated that he had six points, and fell within the " High" risk category. One point was assigned for the January 2012 conviction, and one for the September 2012 charges. The officer who administered the

Page 840

examination, however, testified that she would have given defendant only five points, placing him in the " Moderate-High" risk category. The trial court found the initial examination to be in error, and that defendant's Static-99 did not place him in the " High" risk category. The trial court then made the following findings:

Find that although the Static 99R takes into account prior convictions it does not explicitly consider the short duration ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.