Missed deadline no bar to prayer for judgment

St. Augustine is said to have prayed, “God, make me good, but not just yet.” In North Carolina, a prayer for judgment continued, known as a PJC, is a somewhat similar sort of prayer—a defendant pleads guilty to a crime, but prosecutors agree to postpone the actual entry of judgment. In more serious cases, this is typically because the defendant is cooperating with law enforcement in other prosecutions.

In 2012, lawmakers, concerned about cases dragging out for years without an entry of judgment, passed a law limiting the “but not just yet” phase to just 12 months for cases involving serious felonies, but they failed to specify what should happen if that deadline is missed. On May 21 the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided in a case of first impression that the answer was, effectively, “not much,” and unanimously rejected a Guilford County man’s argument that missing the deadline stripped a court of its jurisdiction to enter judgment against him.

Daniel Marino pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine, a Class D felony, in 2015, and judgment was continued while Marino assisted prosecutors with other cases. Judgment was finally entered 19 months later, at which point Marino received a much lighter sentence than he would have received had he not provided such significant help to prosecutors.

Marino later requested that the sentence be set aside because of the failure to comply with the new law. A superior court judge denied his request, and Judge Toby Hampson, writing for the Court of Appeals, affirmed the ruling, saying that if the law were interpreted in the way Marino had requested, its effect would be entirely the opposite of what lawmakers had intended.

Unanswered prayers

Hampson noted that under North Carolina’s common law, a PJC could be for any period of time, and a trial court lost its jurisdiction only if the delay between acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment became unreasonable under the circumstances. (PJCs, like Banker horses, are unique to North Carolina—no other state uses them in this way.) The new law put a limit of 12 months for high-level felonies, with the potential for a single 12-month extension, before courts must enter the judgment against the defendant.

Marino’s sentencing clearly failed to comply with the law, but Hampson said that this failure to act in a timely manner didn’t necessarily strip the court of its jurisdiction over his case. Since the law was silent on this issue, Hampson wrote, the court instead had to try divine lawmakers’ intentions.

Although the court had very little legislative history to work with, the brief remarks made about the bill before it became law suggested a desire to expedite cases and be “tougher on crime” by ensuring that defendants couldn’t evade punishment entirely by receiving an indefinite PJC. (In misdemeanor cases, and especially in traffic cases, it’s quite common that prosecutors never request that a judgment be entered, meaning that no punishment is ever imposed.)

“Because the intent of the Legislature controls, we hold that noncompliance with [the statute] does not automatically divest the trial court of jurisdiction to enter a final judgment,” Hampson wrote.

Rather, if a PJC staggers on past its sentence-by date, judges must continue to use the common law standard of unreasonable delay to determine whether a court retains jurisdiction. The upshot, then, is that legislators’ directive to judges and prosecutors lacks any sort of enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance.

In Marino’s case, the entry of judgment was clearly reasonable since he failed to object to the entry of judgment when it was entered and he was not in any way prejudiced by the delay, Hampson wrote.

More honored in the breach

Assistant Attorney General Kristin J. Uicker represented the state. A spokesperson for the Attorney General’s Office said the office “is reviewing the court’s decision.” Assistant Appellate Defender Jim Grant represented Marino. Grant said that his office was considering petitioning the state Supreme Court for discretionary review, and thus could not comment on an ongoing matter.

Attorney Ben Deaver of Deaver & Deaver in Wilmington, who was not involved in the case but reviewed the court’s opinion at Lawyers Weekly’s request, said that the ruling makes sense given that legislators were obviously trying to ensure that high level felonies don’t go unpunished. But at the same time, the ruling gives prosecutors little incentive to comply with the law—and defendants are unlikely to force the issue since most of them would prefer to delay their sentencing as long as possible.

“It’s kind of like having a law saying you can’t speed, but there’s no penalty if you do speed,” Deaver said. “There’s no penalty to anyone if it’s not followed, because there’s no remedy unless the defendant can show that he was somehow prejudiced.”

Deaver said he understands why prosecutors might prefer to have judgment continued in order to ensure that defendants continue providing them with substantial assistance in other cases, but that prosecutors could avoid running afoul of the PJC law by simply asking to have a defendant’s bond unsecured, if needed, and letting him provide assistance while out on bond and before pleading guilty to the charges against him.

The 14-page decision is State v. Marino (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-141-19). The full text of the opinion is available online at nclawyersweekly.com.

Follow David Donovan on Twitter @NCLWDonovan