Opinion
No. COA13–50.
2013-06-18
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert HINES.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Ryan McKaig, for Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 September 2012 by Judge F. Lane Williamson in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Ryan McKaig, for Defendant.
McGEE, Judge.
Robert Hines (Defendant) was ordered to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred where “the record did not demonstrate that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction.” Specifically, Defendant contends that the record does not show the State properly notified Defendant under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B(b).
The Division of Adult Correction shall notify the offender of the Division of Adult Correction's determination and the date of the scheduled hearing by certified mail sent to the address provided by the offender pursuant to G.S. 14–208.7. The hearing shall be scheduled no sooner than 15 days from the date the notification is mailed. Receipt of notification shall be presumed to be the date indicated by the certified mail receipt.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B(b) (2011).
In State v. Wooten, 194 N.C.App. 524, 669 S.E.2d 749 (2008), the defendant argued the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it failed “to follow the statutory notice provisions” in N.C.G.S. § 14–208.40B(b). Wooten, 194 N.C.App. at 526, 669 S.E.2d at 750. This Court rejected the argument. The “notice provisions found in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B(b) are merely that, notice provisions to protect the due process rights of offenders who are not currently incarcerated.” Wooten, 194 N.C.App. at 528, 669 S.E.2d at 751. Violations of the notice provisions of N.C.G.S. § 14–208.40B(b) do not affect subject matter jurisdiction.
Even assuming arguendo, without deciding, that the notice provisions of N.C.G.S. § 14–208.40B(b) affect subject matter jurisdiction, Defendant has not shown error. “It is well settled that a silent record supports a presumption that the proceedings below are free from error, and it is the duty of the appellant to see that the record is properly made up and transmitted to the appellate court.” State v. Perry, 316 N.C. 87, 107, 340 S.E.2d 450, 462 (1986). Defendant asks this Court to adopt a new rule that “the State's failure to demonstrate proper statutory notice deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.” This we decline to do.
We note that the State cited and analyzed two unpublished opinions of this Court without designating the opinions as unpublished in its brief or providing a copy of the unpublished opinions to opposing counsel and this Court. An unpublished decision of this Court “does not constitute controlling legal authority.” N.C.R.App. P. 30(e)(3).
Affirmed. Judges STEPHENS and HUNTER, JR. concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).