In August of 2026, the North Carolina Supreme Court filed its decision in a very important case that addresses the timing of filing a habitual felon indictment. The State of North Carolina v. Charles Leon Garmon addresses other points of law as well as, however, its habitual felon analysis is of significant importance to those who practice in the area of criminal law and that is what we will turn our attention to. Here the Supreme Court held that a habitual felon indictment may be filed before a principal felony indictment which is contrary to the longstanding belief and understanding among many in the legal community.
This case originates out of Union County. In January of 2020, Mr. Garmon was indicted for attaining habitual felon status. The felonies that served as the basis for this indictment occurred in June 2000, November 2007, and March of 2013 and he was convicted of the three felonies in 2001, 2009, and 2013. In October of 2020, Mr. Garmon was charged with several felony drug related offenses after being stopped by law enforcement for a traffic violation. This traffic stop occurred approximately ten months after the habitual felon indictment. In August of 2022, Mr. Garmon had a jury trial and was convicted of the drug offenses and pled guilty to attaining the status of a habitual felon. Also in August of 2022, Mr. Garmon filed notice of appeal and filed a Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) in which he asserted that the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter his plea of guilty to attaining habitual felon status because the habitual felon indictment came before the traffic stop and felony drug charges.
The Court of Appeals granted Mr. Garmon’s MAR based on the precedent set by State v. Ross, 221 N.C. App. 185 (2012). However, the Court of Appeals panel was divided on the drug offense convictions. Mr. Garmon filed Notice of Appeal based on the dissent in the Cout of Appeals and the State filed a petition for discretionary review which was allowed in March of 2025.
In holding that the Court of Appeals erred by granting Mr. Garmon’s MAR, the Supreme Court relied on a strict reading of the North Carolina Statutes and specifically the provision of the Habitual Felon Act that pertains to the indictment requirements. The provision relied on by the Supreme states the following:
The district attorney in his or her discretion, may
charge a person as a habitual felon pursuant to this Article. .
An indictment which charges a person who is an habitual
felon within the meaning of G.S. 14-7.1 with the
commission of any felony under the laws of the State
North Carolina must, in order to sustain a conviction
of habitual felon, also charge that said person is an
habitual felon. The indictment charging the defendant
as an habitual felon shall be separate from the indictment
charging him with the principal felony.
In its holding, the Supreme Court notes that there is nothing in the statute that gives a specific timing requirement for either the principal felony indictment or the habitual felony indictment to be filed. The Court goes on to point out that the plain language of the Habitual Felon Act does not prohibit filing the habitual felony indictment prior to the principal felony indictment. The Habitual Felon Act does not prevent the filing of the habitual felon indictment before the principal felony nor does it require the filing of the habitual felon indictment after the indictment on the principal felony. The only requirements of a habitual felon indictment are the dates of the prior felony offenses; the state of the prior felonies; the dates that the defendant either pleaded guilty or was convicted of the prior felonies; and the court where the convictions occurred.
The Court points out that there are safeguards in place for those who may be concerned that this interpretation of the Habitual Felon Action may be an infringement upon basic legal rights. However, attaining habitual felon status is not a separate crime. The filing of a habitual felon indictment standing alone does not permit the State to proceed on the habitual felon indictment. A defendant must be prosecuted for a principal felony before the State can proceed on the habitual felon indictment. The habitual felon indictment serves to put an individual on notice that if they are charged with a fourth felony, the State may proceed with the habitual felon indictment at any time and if convicted of that fourth felony then the possibility of being sentenced as a habitual felon exists.
It will be interesting to observe what changes this decision brings to District Attorney Offices in terms of how they proceed with habitual felon indictments. Some may see this ruling as an opportunity to use habitual felon indictments as a means of gaining leverage in plea negotiations. Others may use it to encourage changes in behavior among possible defendants who, because of their criminal history, are on the cusp of attaining habitual felon status. For those individuals, knowing that a habitual felon indictment has been filed may serve as a deterrent to future criminal activity. Members of the defense bar would be wise to inform their clients of this decision and advise them appropriately when applicable. Now that there is clarity on this issue, all criminal practitioners in North Carolina no longer have to raise questions concerning the timing of a habitual felon indictment.
Recent Comments