in the Court of Appeals 9 August 2017.
by defendant from orders entered 29 June 2016 by Judge Robert
F. Floyd in Richmond County Nos. 15 CRS 1140, 51497, 51848-50
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Jennifer T. Harrod, for the State.
Montgomery for defendant.
Robert Lewis Bishop appeals from the trial court's orders
requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring. Bishop
did not timely appeal these orders. As explained below,
because the arguments Bishop seeks to raise in this appeal
are either procedurally barred or meritless, in our
discretion we decline to issue a writ of certiorari and
dismiss this untimely appeal for lack of appellate
and Procedural History
convicted Defendant Robert Lewis Bishop of three counts of
taking indecent liberties with a child. The offenses occurred
in 2015 and the victim was Bishop's five-year-old
daughter. The trial court sentenced Bishop to three
consecutive terms of 16 to 29 months in prison and ordered
him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for thirty years.
Bishop did not challenge the trial court's imposition of
satellite-based monitoring on constitutional grounds at the
after the trial court imposed its sentence and
satellite-based monitoring order, the court stated, "We
have another matter to take care of, I believe?" Bishop
then entered an Alford plea to two additional counts
of indecent liberties with a child. These two additional
offenses occurred more than a decade before Bishop's
criminal acts against his daughter. The basis of these new
offenses was information, apparently obtained while
investigating Bishop's crimes against his daughter, that
Bishop also had sexually molested his younger brothers. One
of Bishop's brothers told the trial court that Bishop
"spent his entire life molesting children and getting
away with it."
trial court sentenced Bishop to suspended sentences of 19 to
23 months in prison for these offenses, found that Bishop
qualified as a recidivist, and therefore ordered Bishop to
enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life. As before,
Bishop did not challenge the imposition of this new
satellite-based monitoring order on constitutional grounds.
Bishop also did not timely appeal either of the trial
court's orders imposing satellite-based monitoring.
Bishop later filed a petition for writ of certiorari, asking
this Court to review the trial court's satellite-based
Imposition of Satellite-Based Monitoring
argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to enroll
in satellite-based monitoring without conducting a
Grady hearing to determine whether that monitoring
was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Bishop concedes
that his argument suffers from two separate error
preservation issues. First, Bishop did not make this
constitutional argument to the trial court, as the law
requires. Second, Bishop did not timely appeal the trial
court's satellite-based monitoring orders. Bishop
therefore asks this Court to take two extraordinary
steps to reach the merits, first by issuing a writ of
certiorari to hear this appeal, and then by invoking Rule 2
of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to address
his unpreserved constitutional argument. In our discretion,
we decline to do so.
Court has discretion to allow a petition for a writ of
certiorari "to permit review of the judgments and orders
of trial tribunals when the right to prosecute an appeal has
been lost by failure to take timely action." N.C. R.
App. P. 21(a). A writ of certiorari is not intended as a
substitute for a notice of appeal. If this Court routinely
allowed a writ of certiorari in every case in which the
appellant failed to properly appeal, it would render
meaningless the rules governing the time and manner of
noticing appeals. Instead, as our Supreme Court has
explained, "[a] ...