BLOG
When a defendant is sentenced for both state and federal crimes, things can get complicated. There are a few traps for the unwary, even when everyone (prosecutor, defendant, and judge) agrees on how the sentences will be served relative to one another.
Next month the North Carolina Judicial College will sponsor a tour of four correctional facilities in western North Carolina.
A string of recent cases have shown what absconding isn’t. A case from the court of appeals this week gives us an example of what absconding is.
Recently, I was teaching a class about the habitual felon laws when a participant asked a question that I had never considered. We know that a defendant convicted of drug trafficking may be convicted as a habitual felon, and when that happens, the defendant’s term of imprisonment is determined under Structured Sentencing based on the elevated offense class set forth in the habitual felon statutes, not based on the mandatory term of imprisonment set forth in the trafficking statute. But what about the mandatory minimum fine listed in the trafficking statute? Must that be imposed, or is the defendant “habitualized out” of all the sentencing-related provisions of the trafficking laws? Apparently, this issue comes up regularly in practice.
I’m pleased to announce the availability of the School of Government’s 2018 Punishment Chart for North Carolina Crimes and Motor Vehicle Offenses.
Last week, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion summarily reversing the Texas Court of Criminal appeals and finding that a death row inmate has an intellectual disability. The case doesn’t break new doctrinal ground but it offers some possible insights about how several Justices on the newly constituted Court are positioned on capital cases.
The Supreme Court decided Timbs v. Indiana yesterday, holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. What does the decision mean for North Carolina?
The Administrative Office of the Courts has issued its most recent report on cost waivers to the General Assembly. This report covers the first full year of cost waiver data since the General Assembly’s amendment of G.S. 7A-304(a), requiring written notice and an opportunity to be heard for any government entity directly affected by a waiver. Let’s see if that change had an impact on waiver practices.
North Carolina did away with parole for most crimes with the adoption of Structured Sentencing in 1994. Parole is still permitted in certain impaired driving cases, but infrequently granted in practice. Still, there are over 1,300 persons on parole in North Carolina. They are mostly former inmates who served time for serious offenses under Fair Sentencing (effective from 1981 to 1994) or other prior law. There are also over 2,000 inmates in prison serving sentences that are now or will one day be eligible for parole. Today’s post considers the law of how often those inmates are considered for parole.
The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission has just published its annual Structured Sentencing Statistical Report for Felonies and Misdemeanors. Today’s post covers some highlights from the report.