Opinion
No. COA12–1185.
2013-04-2
STATE of North Carolina v. Brian CLUBB.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Bryan Gates for defendant-appellant.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 2 May 2012 by Judge H. William Constangy in Gaston County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 March 2013. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Bryan Gates for defendant-appellant.
BRYANT, Judge.
Where we are bound by the North Carolina Supreme Court's holding in State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 700 S.E.2d 1 (2010), defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Facts and Procedural History
On 28 October 2003, defendant Brian Clubb entered a plea of guilty to second-degree rape, and the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 44 to 62 months imprisonment. Defendant was released from custody on 24 June 2007.
On 2 May 2012, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether defendant was required to enroll in a satellite-based monitoring (SBM) program, in accordance with N.C. Gen.Stat. § 14–208.40B (2011). Upon finding that defendant was convicted of a reportable conviction and an aggravated offense, the trial court ordered defendant to enroll in an SBM program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals.
_________________________
In defendant's sole argument on appeal, he requests that this Court revisit the decision in State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010), in which our Supreme Court held that the SBM program does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state or federal constitution. In order to preserve the issue for further review, defendant requests that we revisit Bowditch in light of the dissenting opinion and in light of a recent decision from the Supreme Court of South Carolina. See State v. Dykes, 398 S.C. 351, 728 S.E.2d 455 (2012) (holding that requiring certain offenders to enroll in lifetime SBM without judicial review related to an assessment of an individual's risk of reoffending violates the offenders' substantive due process rights).
As defendant plainly acknowledges, we are bound by Bowditch. “[The Court of Appeals] has no authority to overrule decisions of [the] Supreme Court and [has] the responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (quotation marks omitted). Defendant has raised no other issues for review, and we are bound by the Supreme Court's decision. We therefore dismiss defendant's appeal.
Appeal dismissed. Judges STEELMAN and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).