State v. Dunston

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
NO. COA14-401
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 5 August 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Durham County
No. 04 CRS 50087
JERRY LAMONT DUNSTON
Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 January 2014 by
Judge Michael J. O’Foghludha in Durham County Superior Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.
Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant.
HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge.
On 25 October 2011, Jerry Lamont Dunston (“defendant”) was
convicted of second degree rape, second degree sex offense,
communicating threats, felony possession of cocaine, and
possession with intent to manufacture, sell, or deliver
marijuana. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of
sixty to eighty-one months imprisonment.
-2-
On 28 August 2013, the State notified defendant that it had
determined that he had been convicted of an aggravated offense
as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40(a)(1), which required
defendant to enroll in the sex offender satellite-based
monitoring (“SBM”) program. On 9 January 2014, the trial court
entered an order requiring that defendant be enrolled in the SBM
program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant
appeals.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the retroactive
application of SBM violates guarantees against ex post facto
laws contained in the federal and state constitutions. We are
not persuaded.
The Supreme Court has held that “subjecting defendants to
the SBM program does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of
the state or federal constitution.” State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C.
335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010). We are bound by Bowditch.
See Cannon v. Miller, 313 N.C. 324, 327 S.E.2d 888 (1985)
(holding that this Court has a “responsibility to follow”
decisions issued by our Supreme Court). Accordingly, the trial
court’s order is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur.
-3-
Report per Rule 30(e).