STEELMAN, Judge.
Where the trial court's additional findings of fact were supported by competent record evidence, the trial court did not err in imposing satellite-based monitoring.
On 6 January 2014, Micquan Smith (defendant) pled guilty to indecent liberties with a minor and attempted first-degree burglary, based on offenses committed on 10 July 2013. The trial court deferred sentencing to determine whether satellite-based monitoring (SBM) was required. On 7 February 2014, the State presented evidence that in January of 2012, defendant pled guilty to assault on a child under twelve, and that in September of 2012, defendant was charged with indecent liberties with a minor and indecent exposure, although these charges were voluntarily dismissed by the State prior to trial.
On 7 March 2014, the State presented the results of the Static-99 examination of defendant, which indicated that he had six points, and fell within the "High" risk category. One point was assigned for the January 2012 conviction, and one for the September 2012 charges. The officer who administered the
Defendant was sentenced to consecutive active sentences of 23-40 months imprisonment for first-degree burglary and 15-27 months imprisonment for indecent liberties with a child. The trial court ordered that defendant be subject to SBM for 20 years following his release from prison.
Defendant appeals.
On appeal from an order imposing SBM, "we review the trial court's findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by competent record evidence, and we review the trial court's conclusions of law for legal accuracy and to ensure that those conclusions reflect a correct application of law to the facts found." State v. Kilby, 198 N.C. App. 363, 367, 679 S.E.2d 430, 432 (2009) (quoting State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 391, 597 S.E.2d 724, 733 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156, 125 S.Ct. 1301, 161 L.Ed.2d 122 (2005)).
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court's additional findings of fact are not supported by competent record evidence, and that the trial court erred in ordering defendant to be subject to SBM. We disagree.
We have held that, if the only evidence presented to the trial court is a STATIC-99 risk assessment of "Moderate," the trial court errs in imposing SBM.
The trial court's findings state that: (1) defendant committed multiple acts, (2) they were close together in time, (3) that all of the subjects of the incidents were young girls, (4) that two of the incidents involved public places, and one involved breaking into a private residence, and (5) that the incidents show that defendant's aggressive conduct was escalating.
Defendant contends that his prior offenses should not have been considered at all in the trial court's findings. We have previously held that the trial court is not to consider matters already included in the STATIC-99 assessment:
State v. Thomas, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 741 S.E.2d 384, 387 (2013). Even assuming arguendo that the charges from January and September 2012 were otherwise admissible, they were part of the STATIC-99 assessment, and the trial court was not permitted to rely upon them as factors in its final determination on the appropriateness of SBM. Further, we note that the September 2012 charges were dismissed; we have previously held that mere accusations of crimes, absent a conviction, "are generally inadmissible even if evidence that [the witness] actually committed the crimes would have been admissible." State v. Johnson, 128 N.C. App. 361, 369, 496 S.E.2d 805, 810 (1998) (quoting State v. Mills, 332 N.C. 392, 407, 420 S.E.2d 114, 121 (1992)). As such, even in the absence of the STATIC-99, the September 2012 charges could not have been relied upon by the trial court.
However, there was evidence in the record to support the remainder of the trial court's findings, with respect to the age of the alleged victims, the temporal proximity of the events, and defendant's increasing sexual aggressiveness. We have held that "when the trial court is making its determination of whether the defendant requires the highest possible level of supervision, the court `is not limited to the DOC's risk assessment' and should consider `any proffered and otherwise admissible evidence relevant to the risk posed by a defendant[.]'" State v. Green, 211 N.C. App. 599, 603, 710 S.E.2d 292, 295 (2011) (quoting Morrow, 200 N.C.App. at 131, 683 S.E.2d at 760-61). These factors were not part of the STATIC-99 evaluation, and the trial court was not barred from considering them. We hold that the trial court did not err in considering this evidence, making findings of fact based on this evidence, and imposing the requirement of post-sentence SBM.
Because the trial court made additional findings of fact that were supported by competent record evidence, we hold that it did not err in ordering defendant to be subject to SBM following his release from incarceration.
AFFIRMED.
Judges DIETZ and INMAN concur.