Some states have passed laws authorizing judges to review sentences after a defendant has served a specified portion of the sentence. They are sometimes referred to as “second look” laws. A bill proposing a second-look procedure was filed in the General Assembly in 2025, but it was referred to committee and never enacted. See House Bill 589. Nevertheless, judges around the state are receiving dozens of motions for appropriate relief filed under authority of “The Second Look Act” as though it became law. To be clear, no such law was enacted, and motions premised solely on that theory lack a legal basis.
I’m not writing this post to rain on anyone’s parade. But I think it’s important to avoid confusion, manage expectations, and be sure that the filing of a meritless MAR now doesn’t wind up procedurally barring a defendant from filing a meritorious one later.
As drafted, North Carolina’s proposed second-look bill would, if enacted, have allowed anyone serving time for DWI or a crime sentenced under Structured Sentencing, except those serving a life sentence, to file for second-look relief after serving 10 years in prison or 50 percent of the imposed sentence if it was for 10 years or less. After consideration of twelve factors set out in the bill (including, among others, age at time of offense, track record in prison, and victim input), if the court could find that the defendant “is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community and that the interests of justice warrant a sentence modification,” it could resentence the defendant under the applicable sentencing law. So, the bill wouldn’t authorize a departure from the sentencing grid or an early release akin to a commutation. Rather, it would allow an opportunity for a new, reduced sentence within the same grid cell. In addition to imposition of a lower sentence within the range, that resentencing might also be an opportunity for the defendant to present new mitigating factors, for the court to order an advanced supervised release date, or for the court to impose probation in lieu of an active term if the grid allowed.
Other states’ second-look laws have gone further, allowing, for example, sentence reductions based on subsequent changes to the law, special early release options for veterans, and special reductions for elderly inmates and domestic violence survivors. The Sentencing Project prepared an interesting and helpful survey of those state laws, available here.
Implementation of a second look process would be a big cultural shift for North Carolina. “Sentences should be truthful” is one of the five guiding principles of Structured Sentencing in North Carolina. The law’s enactment in 1994 was driven in part by a sense that the term of years pronounced by the judge in court was meaningless in light of the frequency of early release through parole. It was a legitimate concern. In 1993, felony defendants were serving less than 20 percent of their imposed sentence before release. Misdemeanor defendants were serving less than 10 percent, and many were “paroled and terminated” directly out of court. See The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission: A History of Its Creation and Its Development of Structured Sentencing. Against that backdrop, North Carolina abolished most forms of parole and established our current system of rigid minimum sentences. Defendants, victims, court officials, and the public could be sure that the minimum pronounced at sentencing would be fully served as stated if the defendant received an active sentence or had probation revoked.
Of course, second-look sentencing would not be parole. As proposed, it would be a resentencing by a judge to a new minimum in open court, not an administrative decision by the Parole Commission to allow an early release.
Though North Carolina didn’t yet enact a Second Look Act, it’s worth noting that there are several ways in which some inmates’ sentences are reviewed for consideration of an earlier release. Those include the following.
- 25-year reviews. As discussed in this prior post, 25-year reviews continue to apply to certain life sentences imposed for offenses committed between 1994 and 1998. That provision doesn’t expressly authorize a resentencing, but instead calls for a judicial recommendation on executive clemency.
- Parole. Some inmates still in prison for offenses committed before Structured Sentencing came into effect in 1994 are eligible for parole. That eligibility pool was expanded in 2013 to apply to many additional inmates after they had served at least 20 years of imprisonment (which in most cases is reduced to 10 years by good time credit). See G.S. 15A-1371(a); S.L. 2013-368, sec. 20. Additionally, under G.S. 143B-1492, the Parole Commission must, each fiscal year, review the case of any parole-eligible inmate who has served more time than would be served by a person sentenced for a comparable crime under Structured Sentencing. (Future proposals for a second-look law may wish to take note of how that statute handles calculation of a term of imprisonment, including the impact of consecutive sentences.)
- Early medical release, as described in this prior post.
