UNPUBLISHED OPINION

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

McGEE, Chief Judge.

James Ray Allen ("Defendant") pled guilty to second-degree sex offense and taking indecent liberties with a child on 6 February 2007. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an active term of imprisonment of 84-110 months for the former offense and a suspended term of 19-23 months with 30 months of supervised probation for the latter offense.

Defendant was ordered to enroll in satellite-based monitoring ("SBM") for life on 28 May 2013. On appeal, this Court determined that Defendant had not been convicted of an aggravated offense and therefore the trial court erred by ordering Defendant to enroll in lifetime SBM. State v. Allen, ___ N.C. App. ___, 757 S.E.2d 525 (2014) (unpublished). This Court reversed the superior court's order and remanded the case for a new hearing. Id.

Defendant appeared before the trial court for a new hearing on 1 April 2014 ("the hearing"). In an order entered that same day, the superior court found that Defendant's offenses involved the physical, mental, or sexual abuse of a minor and ordered Defendant to enroll in SBM for a period of ten years ("the SBM order"). Defendant filed written notice of appeal on 15 May 2014.

Defendant also filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the event this Court determines that his notice of appeal was not timely given. Although the notice of appeal was filed outside the thirty-day limit set forth in N.C. R. App. P. 3, we conclude Defendant's notice of appeal was timely because the time for giving notice of appeal was tolled by the lack of service of a copy of the SBM order upon Defendant. See Rice v. Coholan, 205 N.C. App. 103, 110-11, 695 S.E.2d 484, 489-90 (2010). The petition for writ of certiorari is therefore dismissed as moot.

Defendant contends in his brief that the trial court erred in ordering him to enroll in SBM for ten years when the Static-99 risk assessment classified him as a moderate-low risk offender, the State did not request SBM or present any evidence to support SBM, and the trial court did not make any additional findings to support SBM.

The State concedes in its brief that the trial court erred by concluding Defendant required the highest level of supervision and monitoring based solely upon evidence of a moderate-low Static-99 score and that the trial court's order must be reversed. The State acknowledges that it is unable to distinguish the cases of State v. Causby, 200 N.C. App. 113, 683 S.E.2d 262 (2009) and State v. Kilby, 198 N.C. App. 363, 679 S.E.2d 430 (2009) from the case before this Court.

We agree that the trial court erred and that the order must be reversed because the order is not supported by the evidence. The order is accordingly reversed.

Reversed.

Judges STEPHENS and HUNTER, JR. concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).