Any person convicted of a crime, whereby the rights of citizenship are forfeited, shall have such rights automatically restored upon the occurrence of any one of the following conditions:
(1) The unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of a parolee by the agency of the State having jurisdiction of that person or of a defendant under a suspended sentence by the court.
(2) The unconditional pardon of the offender.
(3) The satisfaction by the offender of all conditions of a conditional pardon.
(4) With regard to any person convicted of a crime against the United States, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of the United States having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon.
(5) With regard to any person convicted of a crime in another state, the unconditional discharge of such person by the agency of that state having jurisdiction of such person, the unconditional pardon of such person or the satisfaction by such person of a conditional pardon. (1971, c. 902; 1973, c. 251; c. 1262, s. 10; 1977, c. 813, s. 1; 1991, c. 274, s. 1; 2011-145, s. 19.1(h); 2012-83, s. 18; 2013-410, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case:
State v. Haselden, 577 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. 2003).
State v. Haselden, 577 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. 2003).
· cites it 12× “Defendant contends that prospective juror Sexton did not need documentation restoring his citizenship rights because his rights were automatically restored under N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5). See N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5) (2001) (providing for automatic restoration of citizenship rights for a…”
State v. Grady, 831 S.E.2d 542 (N.C. 2019).
· cites it 6× “3d 700, 704 (2019) (holding that Massachusetts’s SBM -39- program, as applied to the particular defendant, a probationer, was an unconstitutional search under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights).”
Cmty. Success Initiative v. Moore, 384 N.C. 194 (2023).
· cites it 516× “In the early 1970s, the General Assembly embarked on a series of reforms to section 13-1 and related statutory provisions. The first round of reforms eliminated complicated petition-and-hearing procedure that had long hindered attempts by eligible felons to regain their rights.”
Britt v. State, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C. 2009).
· cites it 6× “6; N.C.G.S. §§ 13-1 to 13-4. (2007). The majority resists judicial restraint in an effort to fashion an individual exception for Mr.”
Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 638 S.E.2d 203 (N.C. 2006).
· cites it 3× “, Webster’s Real Estate *121 Law in North Carolina § 13-1, at 538 (Patrick K. Hetrick & James B.”
Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974).
· cites it 2× “Election Law § 152 (Supp. 1973-1974). Also in 1973, North Carolina amended its laws to restore all civil rights including the franchise to former felons discharged from prison or parole.”
State v. Currie, 202 S.E.2d 153 (N.C. 1974).
· cites it 7× “G.S. 13-1 to G.S. 13-5. (repealed in 1971).”
United States v. Henry David Thomas, 991 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1993).
“Neither did the Texas provisions in effect when Thomas was released from prison in 1959 contain such broad provisions.”
Cloer v. Smith, 512 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
“Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure § 13-1, at 256 (2d ed. 1995) (“On appeal from a magistrate for a trial de novo before a district judge, appropriate counterclaims and crossclaims may be asserted for the first time.”
New Covenant Worship Ctr. v. Wright, 601 S.E.2d 245 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004).
“As the document does not purport to pass title to Plaintiff, it cannot serve as color of title. Second, Plaintiff contends the 1985 deed of trust serves as valid color of title.”
State v. Currie, 198 S.E.2d 491 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 3× “” At the time of defendant’s trial and conviction, G.S. 13-1 to 13-3 established a procedure by which the felon had to have appeared before a judge of the General Court of Justice, shown himself entitled under the statute, and taken an oath prescribed by the statute, before…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-1(1): 1 case
State v. Currie, 202 S.E.2d 153 (N.C. 1974).
“G.S. 13-1 to G.S. 13-5. (repealed in 1971).”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 13-1(5): 1 case
State v. Haselden, 577 S.E.2d 594 (N.C. 2003).
“Defendant contends that prospective juror Sexton did not need documentation restoring his citizenship rights because his rights were automatically restored under N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5). See N.C.G.S. § 13-1(5) (2001) (providing for automatic restoration of citizenship rights for a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.