The Courts’ Limited Role in Post-Release Supervision

Before 2011, post-release supervision (PRS) was a bit of a novelty. Back then, only Class B1–E felons received PRS, and they account for only 15 percent of all felons. For offenses committed on and after December 1, 2011, the Justice Reinvestment Act amended the law to require post-release supervision for all felons who serve active time, regardless of offense class. As a result, there are now close to 10,000 post-release supervisees in North Carolina. More offenders means more questions. And one of the most common questions is what role, if any, the courts have in the administration of post-release supervision. The answer: very little. By statute, the Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission (the Commission)—not the court system—is responsible for administering post-release supervision. G.S. 15A-1368(b). The supreme court has likewise recognized that PRS “ha[s] always been [a] function[] of the executive and not the judicial branch.” State v. Sparks, 362 N.C. 181 (2008). PRS conditions. The Commission sets an offender’s conditions of release as provided in G.S. 15A-1368.4. Many of those conditions look similar to the conditions that judges impose on probationers (e.g., not commit a new crime; not use, possess, or control any illegal drug or controlled substance; etc.), but PRS conditions are, in general, set by the Commission. There are, however, a few areas where the courts have a limited role when it comes to PRS conditions. First, several of the statutory conditions of PRS require the supervisee to comply with existing court orders, such as an order to pay [...]