Does a “Prayer for Judgment Continued” Differ Very Much from a “Prayer for Judgment Granted”?

Once upon a time in the North Carolina courts, a prayer for judgment continued (PJC) could have a positive impact on a person’s future. Essentially, the prosecution would pray—that is, move—for entry of judgment, and the judge would continue the prayer and withhold judgment rather than granting the prayer and entering judgment. See State v. Griffin, 246 N.C. 680 (1957) (discussing procedure). Older cases recognized that a judge’s exercise of his or her authority to defer judgment in the interest of justice did not constitute a conviction. A PJC was thus treated like a prosecutor’s exercise of discretion in deferring prosecution. The deferral not only avoided imposition of sentence in the criminal case; it also meant that the matter did not count as a conviction in later, collateral proceedings. See Barbour v. Scheidt, 246 N.C. 169 (1957) (discussing treatment of PJCs). The Court of Appeals’ February 18, 2020 decision in Mace v. North Carolina Dept. of Insurance provides a reminder that times have changed and a PJC usually provides no protection from the collateral consequences of a conviction. As with any discussion of PJCs, it is important first to identify the kind of PJC we’re talking about. This post is about a true PJC, one in which a judge finds a person guilty after a plea or trial and indefinitely continues the entry of judgment without imposing punishment (court costs are not considered punishment). A true PJC is the end of the case, the final disposition. A judge may withhold judgment [...]