How is a statute supposed to read when the General Assembly amends it in May and then amends it again in July without acknowledging the prior amendment? Let me clarify with an example.
Sentencing
The Courts’ Limited Role in Post-Release Supervision
Before 2011, post-release supervision (PRS) was a bit of a novelty. Back then, only Class B1–E felons received PRS, and they account for only 15 percent of all felons. For offenses committed on and after December 1, 2011, the Justice Reinvestment Act amended the law to require post-release supervision for all felons who serve active time, regardless of offense class. As a result, there are now close to 10,000 post-release supervisees in North Carolina. More offenders means more questions. And one of the most common questions is what role, if any, the courts have in the administration of post-release supervision. The answer: very little.
Consecutive Splits
I am asked from time to time whether imprisonment terms for special probation (split sentences) may be run consecutively. I think they probably may.
Consolidation of Sentences
North Carolina sentencing law allows multiple convictions to be consolidated for sentencing. Consolidation of felonies is governed by G.S. 15A-1340.15(b); G.S. 15A-1340.22(b) covers misdemeanors. The rule is the same for both types of crimes: when you consolidate offenses for judgment, the court imposes a single judgment, with a single sentence appropriate for the defendant’s most serious conviction. It’s a pretty extraordinary thing when you think about it. Notwithstanding all the fine-tuned, mandatory math that goes into the sentencing of a single offense under Structured Sentencing, the law allows virtually unfettered discretion to disregard all but the most serious offense for a defendant convicted of multiple crimes. Today’s post collects some of the rules for consolidation.
Revised Sex Offender Flow Chart (October 2015 Edition)
With the General Assembly done for the year, it’s time to post an updated sex offender registration and monitoring flow chart. A major reorganization of the sex crimes in Chapter 14 necessitated more changes than usual.
Supreme Court Preview: 2015 Term
It’s the first Monday in October, which means it’s the first day of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Term. Read on to learn about the criminal law cases that the Court will consider.
Revoked, but Still on Probation?
I was surprised by one of the provisions included in the omnibus criminal law bill, S.L. 2015-247, that Jeff summarized yesterday. The act amended G.S. 15A-1347 to say that when a defendant whose probation is revoked in district or superior court appeals that revocation, “probation supervision will continue under the same conditions until the termination date of the supervision period or disposition of the appeal, whichever comes first.” The change was effective immediately when the governor signed it on September 23, and people are already asking what it means. Here are my thoughts.
Safekeeping
What can a jail do when an inmate becomes unmanageably dangerous, or unmanageably vulnerable, or unmanageably sick? Or what about when so many people are arrested at once that the jail cannot house them all? In those situations, the jail may seek to have the inmate transferred to the state prison system through a safekeeping order.
SCOTUS to Hear Argument in October about Miller Retroactivity
On October 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Montgomery v. Louisiana, a case that presents the question whether Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012), applies retroactively to convictions that became final before Miller was decided. In Miller the Court held that under the Eighth Amendment a sentencing scheme that mandates life without parole for defendants less than 18 years old at the time of their crimes is unconstitutional. Miller did not categorically ban a life without parole sentence for juvenile offenders; rather it mandated that the sentencer must consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before imposing such a penalty. Miller applies to all cases that were pending when it was decided as well as to all future cases. Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987). The question of retroactivity is whether the Miller rule applies to cases that became final before the decision was issued. As I noted in a blog post here, the lower courts are divided on the issue. The Court’s decision in Montgomery might finally resolve it.
Extending Probation After Expiration
If a judge extends a defendant’s probation after probation has already expired, when does the extension begin?