Opinion
No. COA10-124
Filed 7 September 2010 This case not for publication
Appeal by defendant from order entered 19 October 2009 by Judge C. Randy Pool in Rutherford County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 August 2010.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. J. Edward Yeager, Jr. for defendant-appellant.
Rutherford County No. 07 CR 53857.
On or about 3 October 2007, defendant Terry Aleon Hill ("defendant") pled guilty to one count of sexual battery, a Class A1 misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced defendant to 150 days in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Correction ("DOC").
Thereafter, the DOC sought to require satellite-based monitoring ("SBM") of defendant. On 19 October 2009, the Rutherford County District Court conducted a hearing to determine whether defendant should be subjected to SBM in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B (2009). According to the narrative of the proceedings, the hearing was not recorded and it consisted solely of the trial court reviewing the record. Thereafter, the trial court made findings that (1) defendant was convicted of a reportable conviction as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.6(4) and (2) defendant is a recidivist. Based on these findings, the trial court ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life. According to the narrative of the proceedings, the trial court did not receive any evidence, and defendant was not given an opportunity to present any rebuttal evidence. From the court's order, defendant appeals.
On appeal, defendant argues the following: (1) the State's failure to produce a complete and reliable transcript of defendant's hearing constitutes a violation of his constitutional and statutory rights; and (2) the trial court committed reversible error by failing to conduct the hearing in accordance with the procedures set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B. However, we decline to address either of these issues, because, as the State concedes, the district court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the SBM hearing.
When an offender has already been sentenced and the DOC seeks SBM for the offender, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B sets forth the procedural framework for a trial court to determine whether the offender is required to enroll in an SBM program. This statute provides:
If the Department determines that the offender falls into one of the categories described in G.S. 14-208.40(a), the district attorney, representing the Department, shall schedule a hearing in superior court for the county in which the offender resides.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B(b) (emphasis added).
A prior version of the statute read, "the Department shall schedule a hearing in the court of the county in which the offender resides." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B(b) (2007) (emphasis added). However, a 2009 Session Law amended this subsection, adding the word "superior" immediately before "court." 2009 N.C. Sess. Laws 2009-387 § 4. The revision became effective on 31 July 2009, the day it became law. 2009 N.C. Sess. Laws 2009-387 § 6. Defendant's hearing took place 19 October 2009, several months after the revision to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B became law. Therefore, the 2009 version of the statute applies to his case.
Here, it is undisputed that defendant's hearing took place in district court, with Rutherford County District Court Judge C. Randy Pool presiding. However, district court was not the proper court for the hearing, as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B(b) requires the hearing to be held in superior court. The State contends that this was a jurisdictional defect. As further explained, we agree.
"A trial court must have subject matter jurisdiction over a case in order to act in that case." State v. Reinhardt, 183 N.C. App. 291, 292, 644 S.E.2d 26, 27 (2007). "Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to deal with the kind of action in question. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute." Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987) (internal citation omitted). The North Carolina General Statutes confer power upon the superior court to hear satellite-based monitoring cases pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B(b). Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction to hear such cases lies with the superior court, not the district court. Accordingly, we conclude that the Rutherford County District Court lacked jurisdiction to conduct defendant's hearing.
Here, defendant did not raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before the trial court or this Court. Indeed, the State raised this issue, conceding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the hearing. Nonetheless, defendant has not waived this issue. "It is well-established that the issue of a court's jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal or by a court sua sponte." State v. Webber, 190 N.C. App. 649, 650, 660 S.E.2d 621, 622 (2008) (internal citation omitted). Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, we must vacate the order subjecting defendant to SBM. See State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 176, 273 S.E.2d 708, 711 (1981) ("When the record shows a lack of jurisdiction in the lower court, the appropriate action on the part of the appellate court is to arrest judgment or vacate any order entered without authority.").
Vacated.
Judges BRYANT and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).