Jamie Markham

State v. Wagoner, Satellite-Based Monitoring, and the Ex Post Facto Issue Revisited

Last week the court of appeals decided State v. Wagoner, its latest case involving satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders. Mr. Wagoner, who had previously been convicted of multiple reportable sex crimes in 1996, pled no contest to another one (indecent liberties with a child) in 2005. He received a suspended sentence for the 2005 … Read more

Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors

After my earlier post about nonstatutory aggravating factors, a reader took me up on my offer to write about nonstatutory mitigating factors. In addition to the twenty mitigating factors spelled out in G.S. 15A-1340.16(e), the law allows for “any other mitigating factor reasonably related to the purposes of sentences.” Procedurally, nonstatutory mitigating factors are a … Read more

Nonstatutory Aggravating Factors

By special request, this post recaps the law of nonstatutory aggravating factors. Under G.S. 15A-1340.16(d), the State may, in addition to the 25 statutory aggravating factors set out in that subsection, attempt to prove “any other aggravating factor reasonably related to the purposes of sentencing.” There’s no universal agreement on the “purposes of sentencing,” but … Read more

Absconding from Probation

What does it mean to “abscond” from probation supervision? “Absconder” is not defined statutorily; rather, it is defined in Division of Community Corrections (DCC) policy as “an offender who is actively avoiding supervision by making his/her whereabouts unknown to the supervising officer.” DCC makes a searchable list of all absconders available to the public here … Read more

Satellite-Based Monitoring and State v. Kilby

by School of Government faculty member Jamie Markham There are two categories of sex offenders subject to satellite-based monitoring: those subject to lifetime monitoring, and those subject to monitoring for a period of time specified by the court. For an offender to fall within the latter category (called “conditional” monitoring by DCC), the court must … Read more

Sex Offender Q and A

by School of Government faculty member Jamie Markham

Last month I taught a session for the superior court judges on sex offender registration and monitoring. The handout I used included a set of exercises that we didn’t have time to get through in the session, so I promised the judges I would distribute answers. But why should they get to have all the fun? The exercises follow, with answers after the jump. My sex offender registration and monitoring flow chart is available here if you need it. Page Two, Side Two of form AOC-CR-603 might also come in handy. Finally, for those interested in additional reading, the full handout I used in the session is available here and a related handout from another session is available here.

1.  Which of the following offenders are subject to sex offender registration?

a.  A defendant is convicted of sexual battery on January 15, 2008, based on acts that occurred on October 5, 2005.

b.  A defendant is convicted of crime against nature on November 12, 2008, based on acts that occurred on July 1, 2008.

c.  A defendant released from prison on July 1, 1996 after serving a 15-month sentence for an April 1995 conviction for taking indecent liberties with children.

2.  A defendant pleads guilty to assault on a female based on acts involving his 12-year-old step-daughter. He pushed her after she refused his sexual advances. He is sentenced to 36 months of probation.

a.  Is this a reportable conviction?

b.  Is the defendant subject to any special conditions of probation?

3.  A person subject to the 30-year sex offender registration requirement was arrested and charged with failure to register when he didn’t respond to a semiannual verification form as required in G.S. 14-208.11. Can this offender successfully petition to terminate his registration requirement after 10 years under G.S. 14-208.12A?

4.  In 2009, a defendant is convicted of first-degree rape based on an offense that occurred July 1, 2000. The victim was a 25-year-old woman.

a.  Is this a reportable conviction? If so, how long must this offender register?

b.  Is the offender subject to satellite-based monitoring? If so, for how long?

c.  Suppose the victim was a 16-year-old girl. Does this change your answer to (b)?

5.  A 19-year-old defendant pleads guilty to taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old girl. The offense, which involved consensual oral sex, took place January 12, 2009.

a.  Is the offender subject to satellite-based monitoring? If so, for how long?

b.  Suppose the victim was 11. Does this change your answer to (a)?

6.  A defendant was convicted for taking indecent liberties in 1989. He was later convicted again for taking indecent liberties in 2005, given an active sentence, and released from prison in 2008. Is he subject to lifetime registration and lifetime satellite based monitoring as a recidivist?

7.  In 2009, a defendant is convicted of felony indecent exposure under G.S. 14-190.9(a1). The victim was a 10-year-old girl. At sentencing you determine that the offender is not a recidivist, aggravated offender, or sexually violent predator. You do, however, find that the defendant committed an act involving the sexual abuse of a minor, so you order DOC to complete a risk assessment.

a.  Do you wait for DOC to complete the risk assessment before sentencing the defendant? (G.S. 14-208.40A(d) says DOC shall have 30 to 60 days to complete the assessment and report the results.)

b.  Suppose the assessment comes back MODERATE. What are your options?

c.  Suppose the assessment comes back HIGH. What are your options?

Again, the answers are after the jump.

Read more

Sex Offender Case Law Update (Part II)

Further Update: Well, that didn’t take long – the court of appeals issued its revised decision in Worley on July 21, concluding under the supreme court’s new definition of “change of address” that Mr. Worley had changed addresses, and thus upholding his conviction for failing to update the sheriff. The court again rejected the argument … Read more

Sex Offender Case Law Update (Part I)

Update: As discussed on Professor Doug Berman’s Sentencing Blog, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently determined that the GPS monitoring law in that state is punitive in effect, and therefore may not be applied to defendants initially placed on probation for acts committed before the law’s enactment. The court’s opinion in Commonwealth v. Cory … Read more

Unsatisfactory Termination of Probation

What does it mean for a probationer to be terminated “unsatisfactorily” or “unsuccessfully”? From what I understand it’s a notation that the Division of Community Corrections (DCC) uses to indicate that a probationer’s term of probation ended without revocation, but under other-than-ideal circumstances. A common example arises when a probationer owes restitution as a condition … Read more