New Limits on MARs in Noncapital Cases

My colleagues have been blogging about some of the changes to our criminal law wrought by recent legislation. Session Law 2025-70 also amends G.S. 15A-1415, which governs the grounds that a defendant may assert by motion for appropriate relief (MAR), and establishes limitations as to time. Whereas the statute previously listed grounds that a defendant may assert by MAR at any time after the verdict, the recent amendments create a seven-year limit on most noncapital MARs. This post addresses the changes to G.S. 15A-1415 (effective Dec. 1, 2025). Preexisting Limits in G.S. 15A-1415 “A motion for appropriate relief is a post-verdict motion (or a post-sentencing motion where there is no verdict) made to correct errors occurring prior to, during, and after a criminal trial.” State v. Handy, 326 N.C. 532, 535 (1990). General Statutes Chapter 15A, Article 89, dating from 1977, governs the procedure for such motions. As explained in the commentary, the drafters sought to provide a single, unified procedure for raising at the trial level errors that are asserted to have been made during the trial. G.S. Ch. 15A, Art. 89 cmt.; cf. State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 166 (1982) (MAR provided by Article 89 was intended to replace all post-trial motions except habeas corpus). Even in the best of cases, postconviction relief is designedly difficult to obtain. In general, an MAR must be in writing, state grounds and relief sought, and be accompanied by supporting affidavits. G.S. 15A-1420(a) & (b). If the MAR is based on facts [...]