State v. Pugh
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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA14-930 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Wake County No. 05CRS115060 BRIAN CHRISTOPHER PUGH Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 February 2014 by Judge Carl R. Fox in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January 2015. Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, for the State. Deputy Russell J. Hollers III, for the Defendant. DILLON, Judge. Brian Christopher Pugh (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s order requiring him to enroll in satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) for the remainder of his natural life. We affirm. On 6 February 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree rape and second-degree sex offense. On 11 September 2006, the -2trial court sentenced Defendant to seventy-three to ninety-seven months in prison. Thereafter, the Department of Correction made an initial determination that Defendant falls into one of the categories requiring satellite-based monitoring pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.40B (2014). On 28 February conducted a hearing on the matter. 2014, the trial court Upon finding that Defendant was convicted of a reportable conviction and an aggravated offense, the trial court ordered Defendant to enroll in the SBM program for the remainder of his natural life. Defendant claims that SBM Defendant appeals. violates the constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and due process rights related to his guilty plea. acknowledges that our Supreme Court has monitoring is not a criminal punishment. held Defendant satellite-based See State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2013) (holding that the SBM program is a civil regulatory scheme and therefore “does not violate the Ex constitution”). Post Facto Clauses of the state or federal He nonetheless requests that this Court re- examine the holding in Bowditch and declare that SBM is a criminal punishment. -3We are bound by Bowditch. We have “no authority to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court[.]” Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118, 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (internal marks omitted). Furthermore, we have previously rejected Defendant’s double jeopardy and due process arguments. See State v. Anderson, 198 N.C. App. 201, 204-05, 679 S.E.2d 165, 167 (2009) (holding that SBM does not constitute a violation of a defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy because it is not a punishment), disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 436, 702 S.E.2d 491 (2010); State v. Bare, 197 N.C. App. 461, 479-80, 677 S.E.2d 518, 531-32 (2009) (holding that SBM enrollment was not a direct consequence of a no contest plea and therefore the defendant’s plea was not involuntary and his due process rights were not violated). prior decisions in Anderson and Bare. We are bound by our See In re Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989) (“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”). Defendant has raised no other issues for review, and we are bound by both our own decisions and our Supreme Court’s decision. therefore affirm the order of the trial court. AFFIRMED. We -4Judges ELMORE and STEELMAN concur. Report 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.
