An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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.
NO. COA14-450
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 21 October 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Vance County
No. 13 CRS 1308
ANTHONY SCOTT
Appeal by defendant from order entered 12 December 2013 by
Judge Robert H. Hobgood in Vance County Superior Court. Heard
in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Joseph Finarelli, for the State.
Kevin P. Bradley for defendant-appellant.
McCULLOUGH, Judge.
On 28 February 2008, Anthony Scott (“defendant”) pled
guilty to second-degree rape and was sentenced to a term of
seventy to ninety-three months imprisonment. On 12 December
2013, the trial court entered an order requiring that defendant
be enrolled in the satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) program
for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues that the classification of second-degree
rape as an “aggravated offense” per se requiring SBM violated
-2-
his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
However, “[o]ur appellate courts will only review constitutional
questions raised and passed upon at trial.” State v. Mills, __
N.C. App. __, __, 754 S.E.2d 674, 678 (2014) (citations
omitted). Defendant did not raise any issue related to due
process or equal protection at the SBM hearing. Consequently,
defendant has failed to preserve these constitutional issues for
appeal.
Defendant contends that this Court should nevertheless
review his constitutional issues because his appointed counsel
was ineffective for failing to raise any objections to the SBM
order. We are not persuaded. This Court has stated that “a
claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is available only in
criminal matters, and . . . SBM is not a criminal punishment.”
State v. Wagoner, 199 N.C. App. 321, 332, 683 S.E.2d 391, 400
(2009), aff’d per curiam, 364 N.C. 422, 700 S.E.2d 222 (2010).
Therefore, defendant is not permitted to raise a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel concerning his representation
at the SBM hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s
order.
Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.
-3-
Report per Rule 30(e).