Post-release supervision has been mandatory for all felonies since 2011. But rarely if ever does anyone mention it when advising a defendant about a waiver of counsel or the consequences of a guilty plea. It’s not clearly statutorily required to do so. But the PRS is real, especially for crimes that require registration as a sex offender, where the term of supervised release is five years. G.S. 15A-1368.2(c). Is it a problem that it doesn’t get mentioned? Yes, according to a recent case from the Court of Appeals.
Sentencing
When is Driving While License Revoked a Grossly Aggravating Factor?
There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant’s driver’s license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.” At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.
Findings for Probation Violations after Expiration: Good . . . ‘Cause
This post is about the recurring issue of the requirement for a court to make findings of “good cause shown and stated” to preserve its jurisdiction to act on an alleged probation violation after the case has expired. The appellate courts have vacated many probation revocations for a lack of the required findings. The few affirmed cases show how to do things properly. Turns out, it’s not a demanding requirement.
The End of the Super-Contingent Sentence
Under G.S. 15A-1346(b), a sentencing court has the authority to order a probationary sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged term of imprisonment. Probation officers refer to that as a “contingent” sentence, because for them, it is—the start of the probation is contingent on the person’s release from prison. A contingent probationary sentence can be helpful when, for example, a defendant owes a lot of restitution, and the court wants to make sure there’s plenty of time on probation remaining after the defendant finishes any active sentences. To be clear, this is not a matter of whether the suspended term of imprisonment, if revoked, will run concurrently with or consecutively to some other term of imprisonment. This is about when the period of probation itself begins. A recent Court of Appeals decision changes things.
Jail Credit During a Pending Post-Release Supervision Violation
There are about 10,000 people on post-release supervision (PRS) in North Carolina. Some of them get charged with a new crime. That new charge usually prompts the issuance of a PRS warrant. And when a person is arrested on one of those, it is generally understood that there is no entitlement to bail. So, even if the new charge is relatively minor, the post-release supervisee will often be held in jail until the new charge is resolved. A question that comes up again and again is whether the defendant is entitled to jail credit against the new conviction for the time spent detained on the pending PRS violation.
Another Look at PJCs
Prayer for judgment continued or a “PJC” is a common disposition in criminal cases, most frequently for traffic law violations or low-level crimes, where entry of final judgment is delayed indefinitely. We have previously covered when conditions on a PJC convert it to a final judgment, limits on the use of PJCs, sex offender registration and PJCs, whether a PJC can be expunged, collateral consequences of PJCs, and other contexts where questions about PJCs arise. A case from the Court of Appeals last year has generated renewed interest in dispositional PJCs. Dispositional or “true” PJCs typically serve as the final resolution of a case. This is in contrast with PJCs used to continue judgment for a set period of time so the defendant can satisfy some condition or for the court to otherwise remain involved in the case. Today’s post will examine that decision, offer thoughts on how defenders can mitigate the potential risk of a dispositional PJC, and discuss how an unwanted PJC might be avoided altogether.
Aggregating Value: A Prosecutor’s Guide to the New G.S. 15A-1340.16F
A new statute, effective next month (March 1, 2024), will give prosecutors greater power to combine the value of stolen property to justify a harsher sentence for certain financial crimes. S.L. 2023-151, § 2(a). Section 15A-1340.16F provides that if a person is convicted of two or more of the same financial crimes – embezzlement, false pretenses, or elder exploitation – the crimes may be “aggregated for sentencing” if: (1) the crimes were committed against more than one victim or in more than one county, and (2) the crimes were based on the same act or transaction or series thereof connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan. The statute lays out a comprehensive arrangement for pleading, procedure, and punishment. This post explores the new law.
New Trafficking Fines Coming for Heroin, Fentanyl, and Carfentanil
My colleague Jeff Welty recently wrote about S.L. 2023-123 and changes to our death by drug distribution laws. He mentioned changes to the mandatory drug trafficking fines for certain drugs there, but I wanted to follow up on that point with the details. The new law, with new fines for certain controlled substances, takes effect on December 1, 2023. This post examines the coming changes to drug trafficking fines. Consistent with my defender-focused role, it also explores potential constitutional issues defenders might consider raising in cases where the new fines apply.
2023 Satellite-Based Monitoring Revisions
The General Assembly last amended our satellite-based monitoring (“SBM”) laws in 2021, substantially reworking who qualifies for SBM, the process of petitioning for termination of SBM, and the potential length of SBM (among other changes). If you are still adjusting to those new rules, buckle up. Tucked into the back of S.L 2023-143 (SB 20) are new amendments that once again substantially revise North Carolina’s SBM scheme (in Part VIII, starting at page 44 of the linked bill), effective for SBM orders entered on or after October 1, 2023. This post examines those changes and their potential implications.