The End of the Concurrent Sentence Default – North Carolina Criminal Law

For a few years, it has been the rule in North Carolina that when a number of 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 ahead prior regulation that “sentences are to run concurrently until in any other case specified.” Id. Official Commentary.  Efficient immediately, that default rule is eliminated.

Below G.S. 15A-1354(a), “[w]hen a number of sentences of imprisonment are imposed on an individual on the identical time or when a time period of imprisonment is imposed on an individual who’s already topic to an undischarged time period of imprisonment, together with a time period of imprisonment in one other jurisdiction, the sentences might run both concurrently or consecutively, as decided by the court docket.” Beforehand, the regulation went on to say that “[i]f not specified or not required by statute to run consecutively, sentences shall run concurrently.” Efficient for offenses dedicated on or after December 1, 2025, that provision is deleted, with the consequence being that there is no such thing as a default underneath G.S. 15A-1354. As a substitute, a brand new provision is added stating “[t]he court docket shall make a discovering on the report stating the reasoning for the willpower of the court docket.” S.L. 2025-70, part 19.(a). So, the court docket should determine whether or not the sentence being imposed will run concurrently with or consecutively to different sentences being imposed on the identical time, in addition to another present phrases of imprisonment.

The Administrative Workplace of the Courts has ready new varieties (see, e.g., AOC-CR-601), giving the court docket house to make the statutorily required discovering on the report, together with the reasoning for its willpower.

I’ll dig somewhat deeper on a number of elements of the revised regulation.

Efficient date. The brand new rule is efficient for offenses dedicated on or after December 1, 2025. Meaning there can be somewhat little bit of lag time earlier than the requirement for findings and reasoning in revised G.S. 15A-1354 kicks in. Ultimately, there can be conditions during which a brand new sentence for an offense dedicated on or after December 1, 2025 can be imposed alongside a sentence for an offense dedicated earlier than that date—whether or not that’s for a sentence already being served, or for one being imposed on the identical time. There may also be probation revocations the place the sentence being activated pre-dates the requirement for any particular findings. There’s nothing inherently fallacious with all of that, however for the subsequent few years courts will have to be attentive to the offense date of the crime being sentenced to make certain they make the requisite findings.

No affect on consolidated sentences. The revised rule applies when a number of sentences of imprisonment are imposed. It doesn’t affect the court docket’s authority to consolidate a number of offenses for judgment and impose a single sentence. See G.S. 15A-1340.15(b) (consolidating felonies); 15A-1340.22(b) (consolidating misdemeanors).

Not all statutory defaults for concurrent sentences have been faraway from the regulation. G.S. 15A-1354 falls in Article 83 of Chapter 15A of the Normal Statutes, which units out the overall guidelines for “Imprisonment.” There are some extra provisions inside Article 81B (Structured Sentencing) that pertain to the sentencing of a number of convictions.

First, there’s G.S. 15A-1340.15(a), which units out the foundations for a number of convictions for felonies. It reads “Until in any other case specified by the court docket, all sentences of imprisonment run concurrently with another sentences of imprisonment.” That provision was not amended by S.L. 2025-70, elevating the argument that a number of felony judgments which are silent on the consecutive-concurrent concern must be run concurrently by default. Nonetheless, it’s not clear that the continued existence of a default for felonies relieves the court docket of its new obligation to make findings for its willpower. As a sensible matter, custodians (typically DAC) who obtain a judgment that doesn’t specify consecutive or concurrent are more likely to ship it again for clarification.  

Second, G.S. 15A-1344(d) continues to learn “A sentence activated upon revocation of probation commences on the day probation is revoked and runs concurrently with another interval of probation, parole, or imprisonment to which the defendant is topic throughout that interval until the revoking decide specifies that it’s to run consecutively with the opposite interval.” Within the quick run, most activated probationary sentences can be for offenses that have been dedicated earlier than December 1, 2025, and which are subsequently not topic to the brand new rule in G.S. 15A-1354. As time goes on, courts might want to contemplate easy methods to harmonize the extant default in G.S. 15A-1344(d) with revised G.S. 15A-1354. Once more, as a sensible matter, a custodian in receipt of a judgment and dedication upon revocation of probation might be going to hunt clarification if no determination is memorialized on the shape (which does now embody house for a call and the underlying reasoning, see, e.g., AOC-CR-607).

Third, G.S. 15A-1346 continues to learn “If a interval of probation is being imposed on the identical time a interval of imprisonment is being imposed or whether it is being imposed on an individual already topic to an undischarged time period of imprisonment, the interval of probation might run both concurrently or consecutively with the time period of imprisonment, as decided by the court docket. If not specified, it runs concurrently.” That provision is about probation begin dates, not phrases of imprisonment, so it isn’t at odds with revised G.S. 15A-1354. But it surely makes use of related language, and so I needed to at the least level it out.

Reasoning. Revised G.S. 15A-1354(a) requires the court docket to “make a discovering on the report stating the reasoning for the willpower of the court docket” as to consecutive or concurrent sentences. Notably, the supply doesn’t require “findings of truth.” It’s a “discovering stating the reasoning.” I don’t know of one other statutory provision precisely like that, however my guess is that it’s going to not be considered as requiring an in depth exposition of the sentencing court docket’s reasoning. Cf. State v. Wilkerson, 223 N.C. App. 195, 200 (2012) (noting, within the context of the required findings for an extended interval of probation underneath G.S. 15A-1343.2(d), that “the statute merely requires a discovering {that a} long run is required; it doesn’t require detailed rationale”). I might count on you’ll see a variety of reasoning like “within the pursuits of justice,” “in keeping with historic follow,” “required by regulation” (if all of the sentences are for Class 3 misdemeanors, for instance), or—maybe most steadily—“pursuant to the plea settlement.”

Fiscal affect. The fiscal observe on Senate Invoice 429 was ready earlier than the supply eradicating the concurrent sentence default was added to the invoice. The North Carolina Sentencing and Coverage Advisory Fee did some evaluation of the proposed change in its Overview of Proposed Laws, as required underneath G.S. 164-43. Within the model of the invoice analyzed by the Fee, the proposed rule was the sentences could be presumed to run consecutively. That’s not the place the ultimate model of the regulation wound up; as an alternative, it eradicated any default and required the court docket to make an election between consecutive and concurrent sentences and clarify it.

Nonetheless, the info offered by the Fee are fascinating. The Fee overview indicated that of the 27,088 felony sentences entered in 2024, 55 p.c had two or extra convictions as a part of the sentencing episode. Of that 55 p.c, 30 p.c acquired consecutive sentences and 70 p.c acquired concurrent or consolidated sentences. The Fee then made projections of the jail mattress affect of the brand new rule relying on what number of of these erstwhile concurrent sentences wind up consecutive underneath the revised rule. If, for instance, 1 / 4 of the eligible pool have been to flip from concurrent to consecutive, the jail mattress affect is 431 beds over the subsequent 5 years. The complete evaluation is on web page 67 of the report linked above.