An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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

NO. COA04-1106

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 3 May 2005

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v .                         Greene County
                            No. 02 CRS 050445
MIULER L. FLORES,
            Defendant, and

AEGIS SECURITY INS. CO.,
            Surety

    Appeal by surety from judgment entered 30 March 2004 by Judge Paul L. Jones in Greene County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 March 2005.

    WARREN, KERR, WALSTON, TAYLOR & SMITH, LLP, by John Turner Walston, for the Greene County Board of Education.

    ANDRESEN & VANN, by Kenneth P. Andresen and Christopher M. Vann, for the surety.

    No brief filed for defendant.

    TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

    Surety Aegis Security Insurance Co. (“Surety”) posted a $500,000 bond for defendant Miuler Flores to guarantee his 10 February 2003 court appearance on felony drug charges. Following defendant's failure to appear on his assigned court date, the trial court entered a bond forfeiture judgment against surety. Surety appeals a ruling of the trial court denying its motion, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-544.8(b)(1), to vacate the bond forfeiture judgment.


    The issues presented by surety on appeal are whether (I) there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (II) the bond forfeiture statute violates the notice requirements of the Substantive Due Process doctrine.
    Surety first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law that the deputy clerk of court mailed the notice of bond forfeiture to surety. For the reasons stated in State v. Ferrer & Aegis Security Insurance Co. (COA04-935, filed contemporaneously), we hold that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the trial court.
    Surety also argues that the North Carolina notice of bond forfeiture statute violates the notice requirements of the Substantive Due Process doctrine. This issue is not preserved for appellate review.
    “A constitutional issue not raised at trial will generally not be considered for the first time on appeal.” Anderson v. Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 416, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002) (per curiam).
        [Our appellate courts] may exercise [their] supervisory power to consider constitutional questions not properly raised in the trial court, but only in exceptional circumstances. Even so, constitutional analysis always requires thorough examination of all relevant facts. Thus, a constitutional question is addressed only when the issue is squarely presented upon an adequate factual record and only when resolution of the issue is necessary. To be properly addressed, a constitutional issue must be definitely drawninto focus by plaintiff's pleadings. If the factual record necessary for a constitutional inquiry is lacking, an appellate court should be especially mindful of the dangers inherent in the premature exercise of its jurisdiction.

Id. at 416-17, 572 S.E.2d at 102. (citations, quotations and emphasis omitted).
    In the present case, our review of the record on appeal reveals that surety did not make a Substantive Due Process argument in its motion to vacate the judgment. Furthermore, our review of the trial transcript reveals surety did not raise this constitutional issue during oral arguments at trial. Thus, pursuant to Anderson, we decline to address this issue on appeal.
    We have considered all of surety's assignments of error properly brought forward and for the reasons provided herein, we affirm the order of the trial court.
    AFFIRMED.
    Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***