The Split Is Part of the Probation (March 31, 2016)
Jamie Markham
Probation that includes incarceration is “special probation.” But it’s still probation.
BLOG
March 31, 2016
Probation that includes incarceration is “special probation.” But it’s still probation.
READ POST "The Split Is Part of the Probation (March 31, 2016)"March 29, 2016
Much has been written—and much of it by the Supreme Court—on the proper way to find aggravating factors for sentencing. After Apprendi v. New Jersey, Blakely v. Washington, and countless cases at the state level, it is of course clear that a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to have aggravating factors proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Once sentencing factors are properly found, however, responsibility shifts back to the judge to decide what to do about them. The rules for weighing factors are as loosey-goosey as the rules for finding them are rigid.
READ POST "Weighing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors (March 29, 2016)"March 17, 2016
Can a probationer be revoked for a violation of the “commit no criminal offense” probation condition if the violation report alleges only that the person has been charged with a crime?
READ POST "Alleging a “Commit No Criminal Offense” Probation Violation (March 17, 2016)"March 9, 2016
These days, figuring out the permissible ways to respond to a probation violation is easy. All you need to know is the date of the offense for which the person is on probation. And the type of offense (felony, Structured Sentencing misdemeanor, or DWI). And the date the person was placed on probation. And the date of the alleged probation violation. And bear in mind, of course, that the person may be on probation for more than one offense, with different rules applicable to each case. Once you have all that—piece of cake!
READ POST "Probation Pathways in a Justice Reinvestment [as Amended] World (March 9, 2016)"March 3, 2016
Two new cases from the court of appeals, both involving defendants named Johnson, shed more light on the meaning of “absconding” from probation.
READ POST "More about What Is and Isn’t Absconding (March 3, 2016)"February 25, 2016
Some felony probationers ordered to serve a period of confinement in response to violation (CRV) wind up spending more time behind bars than they would have if their probation been revoked.
READ POST "When CRV Is Worse than Revocation (February 25, 2016)"February 15, 2016
Aside from a few notable exceptions (impaired driving, drug trafficking, and first-degree murder), most North Carolina crimes are sentenced under Structured Sentencing. Some crimes have additional sentencing wrinkles—a kind of Structured Sentencing plus—that kick in by statute. Today’s post is a noncomprehensive list of some of the most common offense-specific sentencing provisions.
READ POST "Special Sentencing Rules (February 15, 2016)"February 11, 2016
It’s like Fight Club: the first rule of talking about sentencing at trial is don’t talk about sentencing at trial.
READ POST "Talking about Sentencing at Trial (February 11, 2016)"February 4, 2016
Let’s brainstorm all the possible sentences for a Prior Record Level I defendant convicted of two Class H felonies. I’ll go first, listing my thoughts roughly from most to least severe (from the defendant’s point of view).
READ POST "All the Possible Sentences (February 4, 2016)"February 2, 2016
A few years ago I began tracking and compiling the consequences that attach to an offense subject to sex offender registration (a registrable offense). In preparation for an upcoming course, I just updated my Consequences Paper.
The list of consequences continues to grow. So, too, has litigation over them. A recent court of appeals decision, State v. Barnett (Jan. 19, 2016), considered the limits on the court’s authority to enter a no-contact order against a person convicted of a registrable offense. (Jamie Markham wrote a blog post about another aspect of the decision—whether attempted rape is an aggravated offense and subject to stricter registration and monitoring requirements. It isn’t.) [After publication of this blog post, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision in Barnett. The Supreme Court agreed that G.S. 15A-1340.50 protects the victim of the offense, not third parties, and a judge may not prohibit contact with third parties for their protection; however, the Supreme Court held that, on appropriate findings, a judge may prohibit the defendant from indirectly contacting the victim through specifically identified third parties, such as the victim’s family.]
READ POST "Interpreting Sex Offender Consequence Laws: Contact with Minors (February 2, 2016)"