State v. Belfield, COA24-640, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Feb. 19, 2025)

In this Nash County case, defendant appealed the order imposing a 25-year term of satellite-based monitoring (SBM), arguing error as defendant was not at high risk to reoffend and did not require the highest level of supervision and monitoring. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding no error.

In August of 2020, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of indecent liberties with a child and was sentenced; subsequently the trial court held a SBM hearing and determined defendant was subject to SBM. In State v. Belfield, 289 N.C. App. 720 (2023) (unpublished), defendant appealed the SBM order, pointing out that the trial court’s order was on form AOC-CR-615, with a box checked indicating the decision was based on additional findings from “the attached form 618.” Slip Op. at 4 (cleaned up). This was significant as defendant’s Static-99 score was a four, which alone was not “high risk” and did not justify SBM, so the trial court had to consider additional evidence to justify the order. However, the order did not contain the referenced form 618, so the court vacated and remanded for the trial court to make findings of fact regarding the imposition of SBM. In October of 2023, the trial court heard the matter, considering the evidence from the previous SBM hearing and entered new findings, again imposing SBM. Defendant appealed that order, leading to the current decision.

Taking up defendant’s appeal a second time, the Court of Appeals explained that when, as here, a defendant does not have a “high risk” Static-99 score, the State must offer additional evidence, and the trial court must make additional findings, to justify a SBM sentence. Defendant argued that the trial court’s additional findings in this case were based upon “the trial court’s consideration of improperly duplicative evidence of matters already addressed in Defendant’s Static-99 risk assessment.” Id. at 11. The court disagreed with defendant, noting that while “additional findings cannot be based solely on matters already addressed in the Static99 risk assessment,” four of the additional findings here were supported by “competent evidence other than that of a defendant’s risk assessment” and justified the imposition of SBM. Id.