Relief from a Criminal Conviction (2018 edition)

General Considerations for Sex Offender Requirements

Petitions to Terminate

The following parts of this guide discuss the principal mechanisms for terminating sex offender registration and satellite-based monitoring obligations. Two different procedures apply—one for relief from registration and related obligations and the other for relief from monitoring obligations only. The availability of relief depends on the type of conviction giving rise to the obligations. Either form of relief is available to a person who meets the statutory criteria, regardless of the date of the offense or conviction.[1]


For the most part, North Carolina’s expunction statutes do not allow expunction of a conviction of an offense subject to sex offender registration. Either the statutes are not broad enough to cover the offenses or the offenses are excluded from relief. G.S. 15A-145, which allows expunction of misdemeanor convictions for offenses committed before age 18, appears to be the one statute that allows expunction of a conviction for an offense subject to sex offender registration. Whether an expunction under this statute discontinues registration and related obligations is unsettled. For a further discussion, see infra Appendixes: Frequently Asked Questions (Offenses Subject to Sex Offender Registration).


An unconditional pardon of innocence (discussed infra under Other Procedures: Pardons) discontinues registration and related obligations. G.S. 14-208.6C.

Declaratory Relief

If a person believes that he or she is wrongfully required to register—for example, the person believes the offense is not one subject to registration—the person should file a declaratory relief action rather than a petition to terminate registration obligations. In re Bunch, 227 N.C. App. 258 (2013) (allowing petition to terminate registration but indicating that it is not the appropriate mechanism for this purpose); see also Meredith v. Stein, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___ (W.D.N.C., Nov. 7, 2018) (holding that North Carolina’s practice of having county sheriff determine whether person must register as sex offender based on out-of-state conviction violates procedural due process; court enjoins North Carolina from placing plaintiff on registry and prosecuting him for failing to comply with requirements without first affording him notice and an opportunity to be heard on whether his conviction requires registration).

If the court grants declaratory relief, the person would no longer be required to register. A different question is whether the court has the authority to order expunction of erroneously obtained registration information to the extent such information exists. Courts in other states have reached different results. See Doe v. Merritt, 261 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (holding that “trial court’s order was an acceptable use of its equitable power to fashion an appropriate remedy for the wrongful acquisition of the information”); see also Williams v. Lee, 2010 WL 1794397 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (unpublished) (reaching same result), vacated on other grounds, 331 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2011). But see Cline v. State, 971 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (in 2-1 decision, finding that trial court lacked statutory authority to order expunction of registration information), transferred and vacated, 982 N.E.2d 298 (Ind. 2013).

A review of the offenses subject to sex offender registration is beyond the scope of this guide. See Jamie Markham, Sex Offender Registration & Satellite-Based Monitoring (SBM) (July 2017); North Carolina Sheriffs' Association, Sex Offender Registration in North Carolina (Sept. 2018).

[1] A small number of people subject to sex offender registration requirements do not have to petition to terminate registration requirements. Effective December 1, 2006, the General Assembly required anyone then subject to registration requirements to petition to terminate those requirements. Before then, the registration requirements expired automatically after 10 years. North Carolina’s registration program began January 1, 1996. Therefore, anyone whose registration period began between January 1 and November 30, 1996 (and who was not subsequently convicted of an offense subject to registration) would have completed his or her 10-year registration period before December 1, 2006, and his or her obligations would have expired automatically. See John Rubin, 2006 Legislation Affecting Criminal Law and Procedure, Administration of Justice Bulletin No. 2007/03, at p. 2 & n.2 (Jan. 2007) (discussing this issue); State v. Aiken, 193 N.C. App. 455 (2008) (unpublished) (recognizing that registration automatically terminates for people whose registration began before December 1, 1996, but finding that defendant’s registration obligation began well after that date).