Opinion
No. COA15-1336
07-05-2016
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HARLEY LATT EDWARDS, JR.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Guy J. Loranger, for defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. Buncombe County, No. 13 CRS 59305 Appeal by defendant from order entered 23 March 2015 by Judge Jeffrey P. Hunt in Buncombe County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 June 2016. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Guy J. Loranger, for defendant. DIETZ, Judge.
Defendant Harley Latt Edwards, Jr. appeals from an order requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring. Edwards pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault involving his six-year-old daughter. During sentencing, the trial court imposed ten years of satellite-based monitoring.
Edwards argues on appeal that the trial court improperly found that he required "the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring" because Edwards scored in the "low" risk category on his risk assessment and the trial court did not make any additional findings beyond that risk assessment.
The State concedes on appeal that the trial court's determination on this issue is erroneous, and we agree. Under this Court's precedent, if a defendant scores in the "low" or "moderate" risk category in a risk assessment, the trial court must make specific additional findings to explain why that defendant requires the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring. Thus, we are constrained to vacate and remand. We note that there appear to be at least some facts in the record, such as the very young age of the victim, that might support additional findings by the trial court on remand.
Facts and Procedural History
On 2 February 2015, Edwards pleaded guilty in Buncombe County Superior Court to one count of attempted first-degree sexual offense. During the plea hearing, Edwards stipulated to the prosecutor's recitation of the facts of the case, which included the victim's date of birth and the fact that she was Edwards's biological daughter. The trial court sentenced Edwards to 143 to 232 months in prison. The trial court also ordered Edwards to register as a sex offender for a period of 30 years and to undergo a risk assessment by the Division of Adult Correction to determine whether he should be enrolled in satellite-based monitoring.
On 18 February 2015, Edwards was administered the STATIC-99R risk assessment. Based on his responses, Edwards scored a "1" on the assessment, placing him in the "low" risk category. On 23 March 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether Edwards should be enrolled in satellite-based monitoring. The State introduced the results of Edwards's STATIC-99R but offered no additional evidence. The trial court asked the age of the victim during the hearing and the prosecutor stated that the victim was "approximately six years of age" at the time of the offense and was Edwards's biological daughter. The trial court found that Edwards required "the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring" and ordered him to enroll in the satellite-based monitoring program for a period of ten years upon his release from incarceration. Edwards timely appealed.
Analysis
On appeal, Edwards argues that the trial court erred by finding that he required "the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring" and ordering him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring, contending that the only evidence presented at his hearing was a risk assessment showing that he posed a "low" risk of recidivism. The State concedes that, under this Court's precedent, the trial court erred by ordering Edwards to enroll in satellite-based monitoring in the absence of any additional findings to supplement the "low" risk assessment. As explained below, we agree and therefore vacate and remand.
This Court repeatedly has held that a defendant who ranks in the "low" or "moderate" risk category in a risk assessment cannot be found to require "the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring" without additional findings from the trial court identifying why the individual poses that higher level of risk. State v. Kilby, 198 N.C. App. 363, 366-67, 679 S.E.2d 430, 432 (2009); State v. Causby, 200 N.C. App. 113, 116-17, 683 S.E.2d 262, 264 (2009).
Here, as the State concedes on appeal, the trial court made no additional findings that would support a determination that Edwards requires the highest level of supervision and monitoring. Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate and remand for reconsideration of the satellite-based monitoring issue. We note that there appears to be at least some evidence in this record, such as the very young age of the victim, that might support a finding that Edwards requires the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring. See, e.g., State v. Green, 211 N.C. App. 599, 604, 710 S.E.2d 292, 296 (2011). We leave it to the trial court on remand to review the record and determine if additional findings are appropriate in this matter.
Conclusion
We vacate the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Judges ELMORE and DAVIS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).