Sentencing Archives – Page 60 of 61 – North Carolina Criminal Law

G.S. 90-96

April 1, 2009March 24, 2009 Jeff Welty

G.S. 90-96 is one of the densest, most used, and most misunderstood statutes on the books. Let’s try to unpack it a little bit. There are two distinct subsections under which cases may fall — subsections (a) and (a1) — and the two subsections are different in scope and in effect. We’ll start with subsection … Read more

Banned from the County

May 25, 2011March 20, 2009 Jamie Markham

The First Circuit recently upheld a district court’s imposition of a special condition of supervised release banning two convicted drug dealers from Suffolk County, Massachusetts (basically, Boston) during the entirety of their eight- and twelve-year periods of supervision (United States v. Garrasteguy). The case caught my eye for two reasons. First, that’s a long time … Read more

Juvenile Adjudications . . . Aggravating

May 25, 2011March 17, 2009 Jamie Markham

An article in last Saturday’s paper talked about Governor Perdue’s proposed changes to the probation system. Part of her plan would give probation officers access to probationers’ juvenile records, which reminded me of a related issue I have been meaning to write about: using juvenile adjudications as an aggravating factor at sentencing. Under G.S. 15A-1340.16(d)(18a), … Read more

A Post Filled with Contempt

October 5, 2017March 13, 2009 Jamie Markham

Over the past few months I’ve been getting some really interesting questions about contempt. Disclaimer: The real experts on our faculty when it comes to contempt are John Saxon, Michael Crowell, and Cheryl Howell—I’m just dabbling here. But there’s a connection to my field (sentencing), in that many of the questions I’m getting relate to … Read more

New Report on Incarceration and Community Corrections

March 3, 2009 Jeff Welty

The Pew Center on the States just released a new report entitled One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections. It’s available here, and a couple of news stories about it are here and here. The title reflects the proportion of American adults that is under some form of “correctional control,” i.e., in prison, … Read more

Prayer for Judgment Continued

May 25, 2011February 23, 2009 Jamie Markham

It has become clear to me in my work with judges and lawyers around the state that use of prayer for judgment continued—a practice virtually unique to North Carolina, at least by that name—varies. The long-running James Johnson case in Wilson concluded last week with a PJC (story here), prompting me to make the first … Read more

Proposed Changes to Sentencing Laws

May 25, 2011February 17, 2009 Jamie Markham

With the growing prison population and the shrinking budget, there’s some talk of changes to North Carolina’s sentencing laws. An article in the paper last week made general reference to sentencing alternatives proposed by the Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. I thought people might be interested in knowing a little more about the specifics of … Read more

Going off the Grid

May 25, 2011February 9, 2009 Jamie Markham

In addition to sentencing in the mitigated range of the Structured Sentencing grid, there are two ways defendants can receive more lenient punishment in North Carolina: extraordinary mitigation and substantial assistance. Each law applies only in certain circumstances, and sometimes there’s confusion between the two. Extraordinary mitigation—or, more precisely, Dispositional Deviation for Extraordinary Mitigation under … Read more

Consecutive Sentences, Not Put on Ice

May 25, 2011February 4, 2009 Jamie Markham

A number of people have asked me whether the United States Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Oregon v. Ice (07-901) has any impact on North Carolina sentencing law. The short answer is, No. In Ice, the latest chapter in the Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), saga, a 5–4 majority of the Justices held … Read more

Sex Offenders, Online Identifiers, and the First Amendment

February 9, 2009February 3, 2009 Jeff Welty

A federal judge in Utah recently invalidated the part of Utah’s sex offender registry that requires each registrant to provide his “[i]nternet identifiers and . . . addresses . . . [and] the name . . . of all websites on which the sex offender is registered.” Doe v. Shurtleff, 2008 WL 4427594 (D. Ut. Sept. 15, 2008) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-21.5(12)(i) & (j)). This raises some questions about the constitutionality of North Carolina’s new requirement that sex offenders provide “[a]ny online identifier that the person uses or intends to use.” G.S. 14-208.7(b)(7) (eff. May 1, 2009). . .