UNPUBLISHED OPINION

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

STEPHENS, Judge.

Defendant Rodney Santonio Hopper, Jr., appeals from an order subjecting him to satellite-based monitoring ("SBM"). Because there is no competent evidence in the record to support the court's finding that Hopper requires the highest possible level of supervision and monitoring, we reverse the order.

The record shows that Hopper was convicted on 12 August 2004 of attempted second-degree sexual offense and taking indecent liberties with a minor. He was sentenced to active terms of imprisonment of 103 to 133 months on the former conviction and 21 to 26 months on the latter conviction. He was also ordered to register as a sex offender.

On 3 April 2014, Hopper was assessed for SBM. Hopper's score of 5 on the Revised Static-99 Coding Form placed him in the moderate-high risk category. His SBM hearing was held on 8 May 2014 in Cleveland County Superior Court. During that hearing, the assistant district attorney narrated a synopsis of the State's evidence at trial indicating that Hopper had engaged in fellatio and vaginal intercourse with the victim. The assistant district attorney also presented Hopper's Static 99 assessment to the court. Hopper's attorney disputed the prosecutor's synopsis, asserting it was not what the jury found in its verdicts. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court dictated the following order:

The court signed a written order, and Hopper filed notice of appeal the next day.

Citing as controlling precedent this Court's rulings in 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), Hopper contends the court below erred in determining that he required the highest possible level of supervision based solely upon a risk assessment of moderate to high. The trial courts in Causby and Kilby determined that the defendants in those cases required the highest level of supervision and monitoring based solely upon risk assessments indicating they posed moderate threats of re-offending. In reversing the trial courts' orders, this Court held that additional findings and evidence other than a moderate risk assessment are required to support a determination that an offender requires the highest level of supervision and monitoring. Causby, 200 N.C. App. at 116-17, 683 S.E.2d at 264; Kilby, 198 N.C. App. at 370, 679 S.E.2d at 434. Absent any evidence in the record tending to indicate the defendant in each case required the highest level of supervision or monitoring, we rejected the State's requests for remand for additional findings of fact. Causby, 200 N.C. App. at 117, 683 S.E.2d at 265; Kilby, 198 N.C. App. at 370, 679 S.E.2d at 434.

Here, the State concedes that it is unable to distinguish this case from Kilby or Causby. The State acknowledges that other than the Static-99 risk assessment, the assistant district attorney presented no competent documentary evidence or testimony to the trial court. Since the assistant district attorney's synopsis of the evidence was neither stipulated nor assented to by Hopper, that synopsis could not be used to support a finding that he required the highest level of supervision and monitoring or that SBM enrollment was required. See State v. Green, 211 N.C. App. 599, 604, 710 S.E.2d 292, 296 (2011) (holding that the State's allegation concerning a domestic violence charge which was not stipulated or assented to by the defendant was not competent evidence to support a finding in a SBM proceeding). Absent competent evidence to support the finding by the court below that Hopper requires the highest level of supervision and monitoring, the SBM order at bar must be

REVERSED.

Chief Judge MCGEE and Judge HUNTER, JR. concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).