The Cost of Criminality: Understanding North Carolina’s Habitual Felon Act – Three Strikes and you’re out
By JaMia Howard ‘28
The Three-Strikes Rule, commonly known in North Carolina as the Habitual Felon Act, enacted in 1994, has shaped how the state punishes repeat offenders. The law states that a defendant receives a mandatory sentence enhancement if they are (1) convicted in federal court of a violent felony and (2) have two or more prior convictions in federal court if one is a serious or violent felony. The law originated from a public outcry aimed at preventing repeat offenders from continuing to harm society.
ORIGINS
In 1990, there was a public movement to end the rising and continuous violence occurring in society. In California in 1992, a young woman named Kimberly Reynolds was murdered by a habitual felon. Her father, Mike Reynolds, sought retribution for this and began organizing petitions. Reynolds' underlying goal was to create a law that would stop repeat offenders from committing further crimes, like the offender who killed his daughter. Reynolds began organizing public support and developed a proposal called The Street Sweeper. Under this proposal, individuals who had one serious or violent offense and committed any additional felony would receive twice the sentence for the current offence. The proposal also stated that nonviolent and unserious offenses would count as a second and third strike. The Street Sweeper proposal failed to turn into law because it failed to collect the 400,000 voter-registered signatures for the bill to get qualified for the ballot. Not only did it fail to get the appropriate number of votes, but the proposal faced stiff opposition from concerned individuals. Opponents believed the bill was actually “too tough” on crime because the offense that would give the offender a life sentence did not have to be violent or serious. The debate shifted dramatically in 1993 when another repeat offender committed another crime that led to the death of a young girl, Polly Klaas. This event fueled public perception of repeat offenders and their lenient treatment by the justice system. The push for this law was prompted by public perception that offenders were not receiving appropriate sentences, and that prosecutors and judges were being “soft on crime.” The first states to enact the Three-Strikes law were Washington in December 1993 and California in March 1994. Soon after, more states started rapidly doing the same.
North Carolina Habitual Felon Act
Unlike traditional Three Strikes Laws, North Carolina’s Habitual Felon Act follows a different legal approach. Under North Carolina law, a person can be classified as a habitual felon if they have a history of multiple felony convictions. Under G.S. 14-7.1, persons defined as habitual felons are any individual who has been convicted of or pled guilty to three felony offenses in any federal or state court. Felonies committed before the age of eighteen will not be considered as more than one felony.
The habitual felony charge is not mandatory; the decision to charge a person as a habitual felon is within the discretion of the district attorney. If the district attorney decides to pursue a habitual felon charge, that charge is filed separately from the indictment of the underlying felony. This rule ensures there is no prejudice among the jury by prohibiting them from hearing about an individual's criminal history while determining whether they are guilty of the current charge. If the jury finds the defendant guilty of the felony, the indictment charging the defendant as a habitual felon may be presented to the same jury. If that jury finds that the defendant is a habitual felon, then the trial judge must sentence them under the enhanced sentence rules.
When a habitual felon is convicted or pleads guilty, they are sentenced at a felony class level that is four classes higher than the felony for which they were convicted. If the defendant is already being sentenced for a Class A, B1, or B2 felony, then the enhancement will not apply because the sentencing is already severe. Class A Felony includes first-degree murder. Class B1 and B2 Felony includes second-degree murder, forcible rape and sexual offenses, and assault. Individuals who have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, Class 1, H, G, F, E, D felonies may be subject to a sentence enhancement upon their third felony conviction. These felonies include, but are not limited to: felony larceny, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree murder, and burglary. However, there is a limit to how high the sentencing may go, the sentence cannot exceed a Class C felony. If an individual is classified as a habitual felon and their third felony conviction is a Class H offense, their sentence will be enhanced to a Class D, and they will be sentenced as such. Class C felonies to Class H felonies represent the four higher-level classes. However, if the third conviction is a Class D felony, the enhancement will only increase to Class C, since the maximum enhancement sentencing cannot exceed Class C.
Three-Strikes Laws would impose sentence enhancement for these violent felonies. Whereas the North Carolina Habitual Felon Act under § 14‑7.1. does not explicitly use the term violent, it intentionally excludes violent offenses such as Class A, B1, or B2 felonies, instead applying to felonies that are not classified as violent. However, North Carolina does have a Habitual Violent Felon Act that extends to individuals who commit violent offenses.
Conflicting Views: Justice Tool or Overreach?
Lawmakers in N.C. generally support the act, viewing it as a tool to deter repeat offenders and increase penalties for those with multiple felony convictions. However, other views consider it harmful and disproportionately affects individuals in different socioeconomic statuses and infringes on the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court addressed the Eighth Amendment concerns in Ewing v. California (2003). The Supreme Court decided on the constitutionality of sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of twenty-five years to life under the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law. Gary Ewing, the appellant, claims that his sentence was grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The California Court of Appeals denied his petition for review and reasoned that they did serve a legitimate goal of deterring and incapacitating repeat offenders. Thus, Ewing appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court analyzed California law and found that if the defendant has one prior “serious” or “violent” felony conviction, they must be sentenced to “twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction. Furthermore, under California law certain offenses may be classified as either felonies or misdemeanors, known as “wobblers” and prosecutors have discretion to charge these offenses as either or. Ewing had committed numerous offenses. In his most recent offense, he was convicted of felony grand theft of personal property and asked for the court to reduce the conviction for grand theft as a “wobbler” to avoid a felony conviction. This would classify his grand theft as a misdemeanor to avoid the three-strikes sentence. The Supreme Court Justice O’Connor, writing the majority opinion, declared that the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime, which means that the Eighth Amendment does not demand that every punishment perfectly match the crime. Instead, it ensures that punishments cannot be outrageously harsh compared to what the person did.
They applied this standard to the case of Ewing. In weighing the gravity of Ewing’s offense, they evaluated not only his recent offense of theft but also his long history of felony recidivism. Ewing had been convicted of numerous misdemeanor and felony offenses, and his prior strikes were serious felony burglaries, one armed. Most of his offenses have been committed when he was on probation. Upon this evaluation, they found that Ewing’s sentence is justified by the State’s public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring repeat offenders and does not violate the Eighth Amendment. States that adopt Three-Strike laws are not in violation of the Constitution, as there is an underlying state interest to deter repeat offenders from committing continuous crimes.
The North Carolina Habitual Felon Act is constitutional, and the state does have a legitimate interest in maintaining low crime rates and restricting repeat offenders from committing further crimes. This act serves as a specific deterrent. However, what remains unclear is whether the Habitual Felon Act is a general deterrent to others.
JaMia Howard is a freshman majoring in political science.
Sources
Jones, F. (2013) Striking Report: The Creation, Enactment, and Application of the Three Strikes Law and An Appeal for California Voters to Amend it. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, Volume 22(1) https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.php/jpp/article/view/5151/4182
Garby Albert Ewing v. California. 538 U.S. 2003 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/11/
N.C. Courts, Gov. North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. Retrieved on April 25th, 2025. https://www.nccourts.gov/assets/documents/publications/Sample-list-2017.pdf
N.C. Courts, Gov. Habitual Felons. Retrieved on April 25th, 2025. https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-7.1.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. Sentencing Enhancements- Three Strikes Law. Retrieved on April 25th, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1032-sentencing-enhancement-three-strikes-law
