Sentencing - Page 9 of 63

Satellite-Based Monitoring Is Unconstitutional for All Unsupervised Recidivists (September 13, 2019)

The Supreme Court of North Carolina held in State v. Grady, ___ N.C. ___ (2019), that satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders is unconstitutional as applied to any unsupervised person who was ordered to enroll in SBM solely because he or she is a recidivist. By unsupervised, the court meant a person not on probation, parole, or post-release supervision. Today’s post takes a closer look at the Grady decision and what it may mean for North Carolina’s SBM program going forward.

READ POST "Satellite-Based Monitoring Is Unconstitutional for All Unsupervised Recidivists (September 13, 2019)"

State v. Morgan and Findings of Good Cause for a Hearing after Expiration (August 30, 2019)

Under State v. Morgan, a case recently decided by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, a trial judge can’t act on a probation case after it has expired unless he or she makes a finding that there is “good cause shown and stated” to do so. In the short run, you’ll need to modify the forms to do it.

READ POST "State v. Morgan and Findings of Good Cause for a Hearing after Expiration (August 30, 2019)"

Nonresident Registrants (August 15, 2019)

In a previous post I wrote about the complexities of putting people on North Carolina’s sex offender registry for crimes committed in another state—including how a federal court found the lack of legal process for doing so unconstitutional, and how over half of the records I checked appeared to be incorrect. Today’s post considers the related issue of people on North Carolina’s registry who do not actually live in the state. Over 5,500 of the 25,000 people on North Carolina’s sex offender registry don’t reside here. Should they be on North Carolina’s registry at all? It’s not clear.

READ POST "Nonresident Registrants (August 15, 2019)"

Does United States v. Haymond Impact Probation and Post-Release Supervision in North Carolina? (July 11, 2019)

In United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), a divided Supreme Court concluded that a federal statute was unconstitutional to the extent that it exposed the defendant to additional mandatory imprisonment based on a judicial finding that he had violated his supervised release. Does the case have implications for probation and post-release supervision hearings in North Carolina?

READ POST "Does United States v. Haymond Impact Probation and Post-Release Supervision in North Carolina? (July 11, 2019)"