BLOG
Author’s Note: Medication assisted treatment (MAT) is now available at the DART Center provided that the treatment began before arrival at the Center. MAT will not be initiated at the […]
For many years, it has been the rule in North Carolina that when multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed, they run concurrently by default. That has been required by statute since 1977. G.S. 15A-1354. And that statute carried forward prior law that “sentences are to run concurrently unless otherwise specified.” Id. Official Commentary. Effective today, that default rule is removed.
The practice of ordering a civil judgment for costs and fines at the outset of a criminal case has run its course.
We are putting the final touches on the new edition of the North Carolina Sentencing Handbook – publication date forthcoming! As part of revising and updating the DWI Sentencing portion, three updates stood out to me as warranting some more discussion. First, the legislature has expanded delegated authority for probation officers to include probationers sentenced for impaired driving under G.S. 20-179. Second, the Court of Appeals further clarified the presumption for unsupervised probation and requirements for transferring a probationer from supervised to unsupervised probation. Third, a new mitigating factor was added for voluntary pretrial installation of an ignition interlock device. Read on for more details.
During the pandemic, we got accustomed to doing certain court proceedings virtually—initially under authority of the Chief Justice’s emergency orders (which Shea discussed here), and later by statute, under G.S. 7A-49.6. That law allows “proceedings of all types” (with some exceptions and caveats) to be conducted using an audio and video transmission. The Department of Adult Correction (DAC) has issued new guidance on its process for scheduling virtual proceedings. Their General Counsel’s Office asked me to help spread the word about it to court officials.
Several criminal statutes include the provision that a person who commits the offense prescribed is guilty of a designated class of offense “unless the conduct is covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment.” E.g., G.S. 14-33(c). Two recent cases illustrate the application of such provisions. In State v. French, No. COA24-704 (N.C. Ct. App. July 2, 2025), the Court of Appeals upheld three consecutive sentences for greater and lesser assaults, despite the inclusion in the relevant statutes of a some-other-provision-of-law clause. By contrast, in State v. Jenkins, No. COA24-889 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug 6, 2025), the Court of Appeals reversed an additional sentence for discharging a firearm within an enclosure because G.S. 14-34.10 contains a some-other-provision-of-law clause. This post examines the intent and scope of the SOPL clause.
I’m happy to announce the availability of the Second Edition of Probation Violations in North Carolina. The book is available in the School of Government bookstore, here. Even though the […]
The legislature enacted a raft of changes this summer to motor vehicle and criminal law. This post examines three session laws that enhanced criminal penalties and revised regulations for motor vehicle offenses and operation. The changes cover broad ground, including changing vehicle inspection requirements, authorizing speed-measuring cameras, and heightening penalties for certain motor vehicle offenses that result in injury. Read on to learn more.
Today’s post reviews the latest Structured Sentencing Statistical Report from the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission.
Under G.S. 15A-1380.5, a law that existed from late 1994 to late 1998, North Carolina defendants sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed between October 1, 1994, and November 30, 1998, are entitled to a judicial review of their sentence after 25 years of imprisonment. I’ve written about it on the blog twice before, here and here, and those posts cover the statutory framework and background. Now that the review window has opened for most, if not all, of the affected inmates—and with many now undergoing their second and subsequent reviews—we’re beginning to see appellate case law that both clarifies and raises questions about how the process is meant to work.