Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 2019.
by defendant from judgment entered 23 March 2018 by Judge
Karen Eady-Williams in Cleveland County Nos. 16 CRS 50448-49,
50453 Superior Court.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney
General Damie Adegbuyi Sesay, for the State.
Montgomery for defendant-appellant.
Dallas Jay Worley appeals from a judgment entered upon a
jury's verdicts finding him guilty of two counts of
statutory sex offense with a child by an adult, and one count
of first-degree kidnapping. Defendant argues the trial court
(1) erred by ordering him to submit to lifetime
satellite-based monitoring upon his release from prison; and
(2) committed plain error by permitting two expert witnesses
to vouch for the child's credibility. Upon review, we
hold that Defendant received a fair trial, free from
evidence presented at trial established that Defendant
repeatedly sexually assaulted his seven-year-old niece,
"Jane." On multiple occasions, Defendant subjected
Jane to anal penetration and oral sex. Although Defendant
threatened to kill her if she ever revealed what he was
doing, Jane eventually informed her mother; she was then
taken to the emergency room for examination. On 14 March
2016, Defendant was indicted for two counts of statutory sex
offense with a child by an adult, and one count of
case came on for trial before the Honorable Karen
Eady-Williams on 19 March 2018 in Cleveland County Superior
Court. The State tendered two witnesses as medical experts:
Dr. Daniel Troha and Dr. Nancy Hendrix. Dr. Troha examined
Jane and testified that he observed that "there was a
lot of redness around the labia and in the area surrounding
that and the anus," but he could not specifically
identify the cause of the redness. Dr. Hendrix, who examined
Jane after she had been discharged from the hospital, found
that (1) there was "a little bit of redness" around
her vaginal area and anus, (2) there was swelling around her
anus, and (3) "the actual anus [was] opened a little
bit, about 3 millimeters."
March 2018, the jury returned verdicts finding Defendant
guilty of all charges. The trial court sentenced Defendant to
an active term of 300 to 420 months in the custody of the
North Carolina Division of Adult Correction, and ordered that
he submit to satellite-based monitoring for the remainder of
his life upon his release from prison. Defendant gave oral
notice of appeal in open court.
Satellite-Based Monitoring Order
first argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to
submit to lifetime satellite-based monitoring upon his
release from prison, absent evidence that lifetime
satellite-based monitoring was a reasonable Fourth Amendment
search. Procedurally, however, Defendant's failure to
comply with our Appellate Rules renders this Court unable to
review this claim.
Defendant neglected to file written notice of appeal from the
satellite-based monitoring order. A satellite-based
monitoring proceeding is a civil action. State v.
Dye, ___ N.C. App.___, ___, 802 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2017).
"Any party . . . in a civil action . . . may take appeal
by filing notice of appeal with the clerk of superior court
and serving copies thereof upon all other parties." N.C.
R. App. P. 3(a). Accordingly, failure to comply with Rule 3
leaves this Court without jurisdiction to hear the
satellite-based monitoring order. Currin-Dillehay Bldg.
Supply v. Frazier, 100 N.C.App. 188, 189, 394 S.E.2d
683, 683, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 327
N.C. 633, 399 S.E.2d 326 (1990).
addition, Defendant did not argue before the trial court that
satellite-based monitoring constituted an unreasonable Fourth
Amendment search. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1)
("In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a
party must have presented to the trial court a timely
request, objection, or motion, stating the specific grounds
for the ruling the party desired the court to make.").
"[C]onstitutional arguments not brought forth at the
lower court level will be dismissed on appeal pursuant to
Rule 10(a)(1)." In re Davis, ___ N.C. App.___,
___, 808 S.E.2d 369, 374 (2017).
failed to follow these Rules, on 21 January 2019, Defendant
filed a petition for writ of certiorari requesting that this
Court reach the merits of his constitutional challenge to the
satellite-based monitoring order. Defendant "essentially
asks this Court to take two extraordinary steps to
reach the merits, first by issuing a writ of certiorari to
hear his appeal, and then by invoking Rule 2 of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure to address his
unpreserved constitutional argument." State v.
DeJesus, ___ N.C. App.___, ___, 827 S.E.2d 744, 753
(quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, ___
N.C. ___, 830 S.E.2d 837 (2019).
decline to take these extraordinary steps. Defendant fails to
identify any evidence of manifest injustice warranting the
invocation of Rule 2. Therefore, in our discretion, we deny
Defendant's petition and dismiss his appeal of the
satellite-based monitoring order.
argues that "the trial court committed plain error in
allowing two of the State's experts to vouch for"
Jane's credibility. Specifically, Defendant takes issue
with the testimony of Dr. Nancy Hendrix and Ms. Michelle
Sullivan. We address each of Defendant's arguments in