Status message

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.
  • Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium is no longer available. Effective June 2025, personnel changes and resource limitations have made it impossible for us to maintain the Compendium to the standard of excellence that the School of Government strives to achieve. We appreciate those who have used and supported the Compendium over the years. We will continue to publish and archive summaries of North Carolina appellate cases concerning criminal law on the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Table of Contents

State v. Jenkins, ___ N.C. App. ___ (Oct. 1, 2024)

Return To Search
Criminal Procedure > Sentencing > Applicable Law

In this Davidson County case, defendant appealed his convictions for indecent liberties with a child and statutory sexual offense with a child, arguing he was improperly sentenced. The Court of Appeals found no error.

In November of 2021, defendant was indicted for sexual offenses with his step-grandchildren. At the conclusion of his trial, defendant was sentenced in accordance with G.S. 15A-1340.17(d). Relevant for defendant’s appeal, in 2011 the General Assembly passed S.L. 2011-192, the “Justice Reinvestment Act,” that amended G.S. 15A-1340.17 to provide a stiffer penalty for offenses committed after December 1, 2011.

On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was unclear as to the dates when he committed the offenses, and that he should have been sentenced with the version of G.S. 15A-1340.17 applicable for offenses prior to December 1, 2011. The Court of Appeals disagreed, pointing to testimony from one of the victims about how old she was when the abuse occurred. The court explained that “[e]ven drawing inferences from this testimony that are mathematically favorable to Defendant, this evidence tends to show the conduct continued until at least 2014[,]” after the December 1, 2011, effective date. Slip Op. at 6.