State v. Dunston
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-401 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 5 August 2014 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Durham County No. 04 CRS 50087 JERRY LAMONT DUNSTON Appeal by defendant from order entered 9 January 2014 by Judge Michael J. O Foghludha in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 July 2014. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Deputy Attorney Winifred H. Dillon for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. On 25 October 2011, Jerry Lamont Dunston ( defendant ) was convicted of second communicating possession marijuana. degree threats, with intent rape, felony to second degree possession of manufacture, sell, sex offense, cocaine, or and deliver The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of sixty to eighty-one months imprisonment. -2On 28 August 2013, the State notified defendant that it had determined that he had been convicted of an aggravated offense as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 14-208.40(a)(1), which required defendant to enroll in monitoring ( SBM ) program. the sex offender satellite-based On 9 January 2014, the trial court entered an order requiring that defendant be enrolled in the SBM program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant appeals. Defendant s sole argument on appeal is that the retroactive application of SBM violates guarantees against ex post facto laws contained in the federal and state constitutions. We are not persuaded. The Supreme Court has held that subjecting defendants to the SBM program does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state or federal constitution. State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010). We are bound by Bowditch. See Cannon (holding v. that Miller, this 313 Court N.C. has a 324, 327 S.E.2d responsibility decisions issued by our Supreme Court). court s order is affirmed. Affirmed. Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur. 888 to (1985) follow Accordingly, the trial -3Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
