State v. Artis ( 2015 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA15-339
Filed: 20 October 2015
Wake County, No. 08 CRS 22984
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v.
ARRIE A. ARTIS
Appeal by defendant from order entered 31 October 2014 by Judge James E.
Hardin, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28
September 2015.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Finarelli, for the State.
Russell J. Hollers III for defendant-appellant.
INMAN, Judge.
Defendant Arrie A. Artis (“defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s order
requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) for the remainder of his
natural life. We affirm the trial court’s order.
Background
On 19 May 2010, defendant entered a plea of guilty to second-degree rape,
second-degree sexual offense, and taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial
STATE V. ARTIS
Opinion of the Court
court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for a term of 73 to 97 months. In a
separate order, the trial court found that defendant was a recidivist and ordered him
to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life.
Thereafter, defendant was released from custody, and he enrolled in an SBM
program. On 31 October 2014, the superior court conducted a hearing regarding
defendant’s continued enrollment in SBM, due to an apparent error on the SBM order
entered by the sentencing court. The State acknowledged that defendant was not a
recidivist, but argued that defendant was convicted of an aggravated offense, and
therefore was still required to enroll in lifetime SBM. The State labeled the
sentencing court’s finding a “scrivener’s error.” Defendant did not contest the State’s
position, but nonetheless objected to SBM based on “ongoing litigation about the
constitutionality of [SBM].” The superior court struck the sentencing court’s finding
that defendant was a recidivist, found that the offense was an aggravated offense,
and ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life.
Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that he has already been punished for his conduct by
enrolling in SBM pursuant to the sentencing court’s void order. Thus, his sole
argument on appeal is that the trial court’s modification constitutes a second
punishment for the same conduct, and therefore violates the Double Jeopardy Clause
of the U.S. Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina
-2-
STATE V. ARTIS
Opinion of the Court
Constitution. Defendant acknowledges that our Supreme Court has held satellite-
based monitoring is not a criminal punishment. See State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335,
352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (holding that the SBM program is a civil regulatory
scheme and therefore does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state or federal
constitution). He nonetheless requests that this Court re-examine the holding in
Bowditch and declare that SBM is a criminal punishment.
As defendant plainly acknowledges, we are bound by Bowditch. “[The Court of
Appeals] has no authority to overrule decisions of [the] Supreme Court and [has] the
responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the Supreme
Court.” Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Additionally, this Court has specifically rejected
defendant’s double jeopardy claim. See State v. Anderson, 198 N.C. App. 201, 204-05,
679 S.E.2d 165, 167 (2009) (holding that SBM does not constitute a violation of a
defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy because it is not a punishment),
disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 436, 702 S.E.2d 491 (2010). We are likewise bound by
our decision in Anderson. See In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30,
37 (1989) (“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit
in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent,
unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”).
Conclusion
-3-
STATE V. ARTIS
Opinion of the Court
Defendant has raised no other issues for review, and we are bound by both our
own decision and our Supreme Court’s decision. We therefore affirm the order of the
trial court.
AFFIRMED.
Judges STROUD and DAVIS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-4-