An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA15-339

Filed: 20 October 2015

Wake County, No. 08 CRS 22984

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v.

ARRIE A. ARTIS

Appeal by defendant from order entered 31 October 2014 by Judge James E. 

Hardin, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 

September 2015.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph 

Finarelli, for the State.

Russell J. Hollers III for defendant-appellant.

INMAN, Judge.

Defendant Arrie A. Artis (“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 the trial court’s order.

Background

On 19 May 2010, defendant entered a plea of guilty to second-degree rape, 

second-degree sexual offense, and taking indecent liberties with a child. The trial 
STATE V. ARTIS

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for a term of 73 to 97 months. In a 

separate order, the trial court found that defendant was a recidivist and ordered him 

to enroll in satellite-based monitoring for life. 

Thereafter, defendant was released from custody, and he enrolled in an SBM 

program. On 31 October 2014, the superior court conducted a hearing regarding 

defendant’s continued enrollment in SBM, due to an apparent error on the SBM order 

entered by the sentencing court. The State acknowledged that defendant was not a 

recidivist, but argued that defendant was convicted of an aggravated offense, and 

therefore was still required to enroll in lifetime SBM. The State labeled the 

sentencing court’s finding a “scrivener’s error.” Defendant did not contest the State’s 

position, but nonetheless objected to SBM based on “ongoing litigation about the 

constitutionality of [SBM].” The superior court struck the sentencing court’s finding 

that defendant was a recidivist, found that the offense was an aggravated offense, 

and ordered defendant to enroll in SBM for the remainder of his natural life. 

Defendant appeals. 

Defendant contends that he has already been punished for his conduct by 

enrolling in SBM pursuant to the sentencing court’s void order. Thus, his sole 

argument on appeal is that the trial court’s modification constitutes a second 

punishment for the same conduct, and therefore violates the Double Jeopardy Clause 

of the U.S. Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina 
STATE V. ARTIS

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

Constitution. Defendant acknowledges that our Supreme Court has held satellitebased monitoring is not a criminal punishment. See State v. Bowditch, 364 N.C. 335, 

352, 700 S.E.2d 1, 13 (2010) (holding that the SBM program is a civil regulatory 

scheme and therefore does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state or federal 

constitution). He nonetheless requests that this Court re-examine the holding in 

Bowditch and declare that SBM is a criminal punishment. 

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) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Additionally, this Court has specifically rejected 

defendant’s double jeopardy claim. 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). We are likewise bound by 

our decision in Anderson. 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.”). 

Conclusion
STATE V. ARTIS

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

Defendant has raised no other issues for review, and we are bound by both our 

own decision and our Supreme Court’s decision. We therefore affirm the order of the 

trial court.

AFFIRMED.

Judges STROUD and DAVIS concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).