North Carolina Criminal Law Blog

Some states have passed laws authorizing judges to review sentences after a defendant has served a specified portion of the sentence. They are sometimes referred to as “second look” laws. A bill proposing a second-look procedure was filed in the General Assembly in 2025, but it was referred to committee and never enacted. See House Bill 589. Nevertheless, judges around the state are receiving dozens of motions for appropriate relief filed under authority of “The Second Look Act” as though it became law. To be clear, no such law was enacted, and motions premised solely on that theory lack a legal basis.

Read post

As 2025 came to a close, the North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission published the Driving While Impaired Convictions Statistical Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (hereinafter “the report”). The […]

Read post

For the second day in a row, I’m pleased to announce a new publication co-authored by Belal. The latest edition of the North Carolina Sentencing Handbook is available for purchase here. 

Read post

In October, we administered a class on DWI substantive law and procedure for District Court Judges and Magistrates. As part of that program, I took a group of judges to […]

Read post

For many years, it has been the rule in North Carolina that when multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed, they run concurrently by default. That has been required by statute since 1977. G.S. 15A-1354. And that statute carried forward prior law that “sentences are to run concurrently unless otherwise specified.” Id. Official Commentary.  Effective today, that default rule is removed.

Read post

We are putting the final touches on the new edition of the North Carolina Sentencing Handbook - publication date forthcoming! As part of revising and updating the DWI Sentencing portion, three updates stood out to me as warranting some more discussion. First, the legislature has expanded delegated authority for probation officers to include probationers sentenced for impaired driving under G.S. 20-179. Second, the Court of Appeals further clarified the presumption for unsupervised probation and requirements for transferring a probationer from supervised to unsupervised probation. Third, a new mitigating factor was added for voluntary pretrial installation of an ignition interlock device. Read on for more details.

Read post

The legislature enacted a raft of changes this summer to motor vehicle and criminal law. This post examines three session laws that enhanced criminal penalties and revised regulations for motor vehicle offenses and operation. The changes cover broad ground, including changing vehicle inspection requirements, authorizing speed-measuring cameras, and heightening penalties for certain motor vehicle offenses that result in injury. Read on to learn more.

Read post

Under G.S. 15A-1380.5, a law that existed from late 1994 to late 1998, North Carolina defendants sentenced to life without parole for offenses committed between October 1, 1994, and November 30, 1998, are entitled to a judicial review of their sentence after 25 years of imprisonment. I’ve written about it on the blog twice before, here and here, and those posts cover the statutory framework and background. Now that the review window has opened for most, if not all, of the affected inmates—and with many now undergoing their second and subsequent reviews—we’re beginning to see appellate case law that both clarifies and raises questions about how the process is meant to work.

Read post

Suppose you are a defender representing a client charged with Possession of Firearm by Felon. You receive a plea offer in the case, along with the AOC-CR-600B, the “Worksheet” regularly used for calculating the Prior Record Level (PRL) before sentencing. You review the worksheet and notice that it makes no reference to a prior felony conviction for which your client served prison time. You know of this missing conviction because you regularly verify the information the State provides to you, and you saw the conviction in the relevant database. You also discussed the conviction with your client when interviewing him about his past experiences and record in prison. Without the prior conviction, your client would be sentenced as a PRL III for felony sentencing purposes, but with the conviction, your client would be sentenced as a PRL IV. The general practice in your judicial district is for both parties to sign the PRL Worksheet, stipulating to the information set forth on the form and agreeing with the defendant’s PRL classification as indicated. How should you proceed? In teaching felony defenders here at SOG, I’ve seen this ethical dilemma threaten to swallow up the allotted ethics hour on multiple occasions. It is a challenging issue that, like many other dilemmas, involves a clash between ethical obligations.

Read post

There are six sentencing levels for Driving While Impaired (DWI) convictions. A defendant is only exposed to the three most severe levels (A1, 1, and 2) if a judge or jury finds the existence of one or more “grossly aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt. These factors are listed in G.S. 20-179(c). One of them is “[d]riving by the defendant at the time of the offense while the defendant's driver's license was revoked pursuant to G.S. 20‑28(a1).” Rather than applying to all revocations, G.S. 20-28(a1) applies when person’s license is revoked for an “impaired driving revocation.”  At first glance, it appears any time a person is convicted of DWI, if their license was revoked for an impaired driving revocation, this grossly aggravating factor would apply and elevate their sentencing exposure—but that may not be the case. Read on for more.

Read post