Offense Date Ranges: Which Sentencing Law Applies?

North Carolina’s structured sentencing grid did not change from 1995 to 2009. Since then it has changed twice, once for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2009 (discussed here), and again (under the Justice Reinvestment Act) for offenses committed on or after December 1, 2011. With that recent history in mind, an important first step in any sentencing episode is choosing the right grid. All of the grids, including the original 1994 version, are posted on the webpage of the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, here.

Which grid to use is determined by the defendant’s offense date.  Based on the questions I have been getting lately, it seems that the court system is starting to see the first wave of post–December 1, 2011 offenders. Many of them are before the court for multiple offenses, some that occurred before the new law came into effect and some after. In general the court must be careful to sentence each conviction under the law applicable to it. I wrote previously, here, about the implications and propriety of consolidating pre- and post-JRA offenses for judgment.

Today’s post considers a variation on that theme. What about a single offense for which the alleged date of offense is a range of dates that crosses the December 1, 2011 threshold? It is permissible for the charging instrument to allege a range of dates when time is not of the essence and the lack of specificity does not impair the defendant’s ability to defend against the charge. See Jessica Smith, The Criminal Indictment: Fatal Defect, Fatal Variance, and Amendment, Administration of Justice Bulletin 2008/03 (July 2008), at 4–9. The issue often arises in the context of sex crimes against young victims, where the child is unable to pinpoint a precise offense date but knows that the offense happened around the time of his or her birthday, a holiday, or a particular time of year. It can also happen when, for example, a house is broken into while the homeowner is on vacation, or when a single count of embezzlement is charged for course of conduct that occurred over an extended period of time.

There is little case law on point, but the general rule appears to be that when an offense date spans different sentencing laws, the less severe sentencing law applies unless the State can prove that the offense took place during the period in which the more punitive law was in effect. State v. Poston, 162 N.C. App. 642 (2004), is the leading case. In Poston, the defendant was charged with multiple sex crimes against his daughter between 1993 and 2000. One of the alleged offenses was a first degree sexual offense committed between June 1 and July 31, 1994. The defendant was convicted of that offense and sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under Fair Sentencing, which applied to offenses committed before October 1, 1994. Even though the alleged offense date range fell entirely within the coverage of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), the defendant argued on appeal that he should have been sentenced under Structured Sentencing—which would have resulted in a non-life (but nonetheless lengthy) sentence to a term of months.

The court of appeals agreed. The evidence at trial indicated that the offense actually occurred when the victim “was seven years old,” and the victim’s seventh birthday was October 8, 1994. Because the victim turned seven a week after Structured Sentencing went into effect, the court of appeals held that the evidence was “insufficient to permit the trial court to sentence the defendant under the Fair Sentencing Act.” 162 N.C. at 651. The State did not “meet its burden of demonstrating that the more severe sentence statute is applicable,” id., and so the case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing under Structured Sentencing.

In State v. Lawrence, by contrast, the State did meet its burden of showing that some of the defendant’s sex crimes occurred after October 1, 1994. 193 N.C. App. 220, 224-25 (2008). In Lawrence, the indictments charging the defendant with second-degree rape and second-degree sexual offense stated that the offenses occurred between November 13, 1993 and November 13, 1994—a span that crossed the October 1, 1994 divide. The court of appeals held that sentencing under Structured Sentencing was proper when the evidence at trial indicated that the crimes happened after the defendant’s birthday on October 13, 1994. By way of background, those crimes were made Class C felonies under Structured Sentencing. They were Class D under the FSA—which actually carried a longer potential maximum sentence (40 years) than a Class C felony under Structured Sentencing, but also allowed a less serious sentence than would be permissible under Structured Sentencing.

A final case worth noting is State v. Mullaney, 129 N.C. App. 506 (1998). In Mullaney, a defendant pled guilty to a single count of embezzlement for acts that occurred between January 8, 1993 to February 1, 1996. (The State could have charged each act individually but chose not to.) The trial judge ruled “in its discretion” that sentencing would be under the Fair Sentencing Act and sentenced the defendant to 10 years in prison, the maximum for a Class H felony under the FSA. The court of appeals vacated the sentence, holding in a divided opinion that because the single pled-to charge was not completed until after October 1, 1994, the trial court was required to sentence the defendant under Structured Sentencing. Cf. United States v. Sheffer, 896 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 990) (allowing but not requiring sentencing under more recent—and more severe—sentencing guidelines for a conspiracy that began before but continued beyond the effective date of the new guidelines). It was not central to the court’s holding in Mullaney, but it may be worth noting that the defendant would receive a far shorter sentence (about one year in prison) under Structured Sentencing than he received under the FSA.

Thinking about the most recent changes to North Carolina law, the post-December 1, 2011 is probably the more “severe” sentencing law within the meaning of Poston. Maximum sentences on the new grid are higher and the law adds or extends the requirement of post-release supervision for all felonies. Thus, if a defendant is convicted of a crime with an offense date that spans December 1, 2011, and there is a dispute about which sentencing law applies, it seems that in general the old law should apply unless the State demonstrates that the offense occurred after the new law came into effect. An exception to that rule would apply if the offense is continuing in nature and not “completed” until after December 1, 2011. In that situation, Mullaney appears to say that the new law must apply.

10 thoughts on “Offense Date Ranges: Which Sentencing Law Applies?”

  1. Mindy Oliver: In general no — unless you’re talking about someone already in prison for an offense that occurred on/after 12/1/11 for whom the wrong law was used. The changes to the sentencing grid and habitual felon law were expressly made to apply to offenses committed on or after the law’s effective date.

  2. my husband was started his sentence on may 30 2012, he is a habitual felon. He committed his latest felony in may, july of 2011. When he was released in Decemeber 2011, he came home on house arrest. He stayed on house arrest for 7 months, and spent 6months in jail. His minimum term is 5 yrs. 3 months, and his max. is 7 yrs.1 month, but his PRD is 5/22/2017, what act was he sentenced under. He is infraction free and is currently at the Tabor City CI, he is infraction free and is working as a janitor

  3. I have been looking every where for how to get my husband a MAPP i have found the requirements and he mets all of them so what happens in the way of getting him reviewed for it

    • I have a fiance that was sentenced under the fair sentencing act for felony. He has served 24 yrs. He became eligle for parole 4yrs. ago. He has no infractions against him in the last 13yrs, works everyday. Has a home to go to as well as a job waiting for him. He is 60 yrs old with medical conditions. Where do I find information that could help him through the system. No one seems to want to help. “Please Help”

  4. My name is Angela Smith..My boyfriend is an inmate at Pender Correctional. My question is, he’s wanting to apply for the MAPP program. He meets all the requirements except for the one about the pre-structure sentencing. He committed his crime 11-16-2009, would he have been sentenced under the pre structure law. Are you familiar with the MAPP program? Thank you for your time…..Angela Smith

    • I was released through the MAPP program in 2006 MAPP stands for Mutual Agreement Parole Plan. I do know if they changed anything but your boyfriend would not be eligible for a MAPP because there is no parole under the structured sentencing. The program was designed for inmates under the fair sentencing act because they were Pre-Structured sentencing and fell in the Fair Sentencing of the early 80’s and early 90’s. Structured sentencing was introduced to eliminate the parole system and make inmates serve the complete sentence. I do not know what his crime is I know that Pender is a brown closed unit which means he is still in Medium Custody. The way the MAPP program worked is you had to remain infraction free for the entire time you were in the MAPP program and their were certain requirements you had to meet such as getting promoted to min custody, do community volunteer programs, get work release and then do home passes.

  5. My father was sentenced under FSA, for 2 second degree murders been in prison for 35 years. Can he be resentenced under structure sentence and come home? Thank you Kasey Monroe


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.