The 2026 Post-Conviction Relief Update

New Laws, New Deadlines, and Retroactive Relief in NC, TN, and Federal Courts

If you have been waiting for the “right time” to challenge a conviction or sentence, that time is now. In the span of just two months—November and December 2025—lawmakers and rulemakers reshaped the post-conviction landscape in North Carolina, Tennessee, and federal court. Some long-open filing windows closed. New deadlines appeared where none existed before.

At the same time, Tennessee opened a door that had been locked for decades, and the federal system clarified sentencing rules that may affect people already serving time. This update walks through what changed, when it changed, and what those changes mean for real people deciding their next move in 2026.

TL;DR

• Federal sentencing rules changed on November 1, 2025, narrowing enhancements and clarifying criminal history calculations

• North Carolina imposed a seven-year deadline on most Motions for Appropriate Relief starting December 1, 2025

• Tennessee expanded coram nobis relief for guilty pleas in 2025, with the real impact playing out in courts in 2026

• These are procedural changes that affect timing and access, not automatic sentence reductions

• Missing these changes can permanently bar otherwise valid claims

Federal: November 1, 2025 Sentencing Changes That May Affect Existing Sentences

On November 1, 2025, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s latest amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines officially went into effect. Unlike many guideline updates that only matter going forward, several of these changes directly address how sentences were calculated in the past—particularly in robbery and extortion cases. These amendments were adopted to resolve long-standing disagreements between federal courts and to rein in enhancements that had gradually expanded far beyond their original purpose.

The Commission described these changes as clarifications, not policy shifts. That distinction matters. When the Commission clarifies how a guideline was meant to be applied, it opens the door for post-conviction arguments that some sentences were calculated under interpretations the Commission has now rejected.

Key Changes that Could Lower Sentences:

Several of the November 1, 2025 amendments address enhancements that frequently added years to federal sentences. These changes narrow how those enhancements apply and eliminate interpretations that relied more on habit than on the guideline text.

An example of actual physical restraint, not verbal commands or implied control, under the clarified federal sentencing guidelines effective November 1, 2025.

Key changes include:

1. Physical restraint now requires actual physical restriction of movement through force or confinement

2. Verbal commands, fear, or compliance alone no longer qualify as restraint

3. Firearm “otherwise used” enhancements require a specific threat or physical contact

4. Merely pointing or displaying a firearm is insufficient

5. A traffic stop is not an intervening arrest for criminal history purposes

Each of these changes responds to real-world sentencing practices that had expanded beyond what the guidelines were originally designed to cover.

How These Clarifications Could Change Past Sentencing Calculations

For many people serving federal sentences, the issue is not whether a guideline existed, but how it was applied. Over time, certain enhancements became almost automatic, applied through stock language in presentence reports rather than careful analysis of what actually happened in the case. The November 1, 2025 amendments were designed to pull those applications back to the guideline text itself.

In practical terms, this means that sentences imposed under broader interpretations may no longer reflect how the Sentencing Commission says the guidelines should work. When an enhancement was added based on verbal commands, implied threats, or generalized fear—rather than physical restraint or specific conduct—the resulting offense level may be inflated under today’s clarified rules. That mismatch between the sentence imposed and the guideline as clarified is where post-conviction review from a very experienced attorney comes into play.

Attorney Insight:

Most federal sentencing errors are not dramatic mistakes. They are small enhancements layered on top of each other. When the Commission tightens the definitions, those layers matter.

The same logic applies to criminal history calculations. In many cases, prior sentences were treated as separate because of intervening events that did not amount to arrests in any meaningful sense. The Commission’s clarification that a traffic stop is not an intervening arrest removes a basis that previously increased criminal history categories for some defendants.

What This Means For You: When taken together, these changes do not guarantee sentence reductions, but they do identify specific areas where sentences may have been calculated incorrectly. Many of these issues appear in just a few lines of a Presentence Investigation Report and were rarely challenged at the time of sentencing.

If your guideline range increased because of a physical restraint finding without actual confinement, a firearm classified as “otherwise used” without a specific threat or contact, or criminal history points driven by traffic stops, your sentence may deserve a second look under the clarified rules.

Sentencing Structure Clarification: Departures, Variances, and Judicial Discretion

In addition to narrowing specific enhancements, the 2025 amendments also clarified how federal judges are instructed to structure sentencing decisions. The Sentencing Commission simplified guideline commentary to reinforce a two-step process: first calculating the guideline range, then imposing a sentence based on the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In doing so, the Commission deemphasized rigid “departure” terminology that had grown overly complex and, in practice, obscured the scope of judicial discretion.

What This Means For You: This clarification does not declare past sentences unlawful. Judges have always had discretion after United States v. Booker. But many sentencing records, particularly those before 2025, reflect courts treating guideline mechanics as more constraining than the Commission now describes them. When a sentencing judge expressed reluctance, confusion, or perceived limitation tied to guideline “departure” rules, that context now looks different under the clarified framework.

Key Points for Federal Post-Conviction Review:

• These amendments took effect on November 1, 2025

• The Commission described them as clarifications, not new policy

• They resolve circuit splits and narrow overused enhancements

• Relief is not automatic, but post-conviction review may be warranted

• Careful review of the PSR and sentencing transcript is essential

• Sentencing structure was clarified to emphasize judicial discretion under § 3553(a)

The "Door is Closing" on Old Claims: North Carolina Post-Conviction Changes on December 1, 2025

For decades, North Carolina was an outlier in post-conviction law. Unlike most states, there was no real statute of limitations for filing a Motion for Appropriate Relief, or MAR. If a constitutional problem surfaced years—or even decades—after a conviction, the courts could still hear it. That open-ended system is what allowed many long-forgotten cases to come back to life.

That changed on December 1, 2025. A new amendment to G.S. 15A-1415 now imposes a seven-year statute of limitations on most non-capital MARs. In plain terms, North Carolina has put a clock on post-conviction relief, and once that clock runs out, most claims are barred before a judge ever looks at the merits.

What This Means For You: If your conviction became final in 2018 or earlier, you are now in a real danger zone. Prosecutors are expected to rely heavily on this new deadline and move to dismiss cases on timing alone, without addressing whether a constitutional violation actually occurred. Once appellate courts start issuing opinions enforcing the new statute, those dismissals will become routine.

There are exceptions, but they are narrow and demanding. Claims based on newly discovered evidence such as DNA, credible recantations, or proof of actual innocence can still be filed outside the seven-year window, but the burden is entirely on you to explain why the deadline should not apply. Claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel, trial errors, or procedural defects do not get that same grace. If you have been sitting on one of those claims, waiting now carries real risk.

Key Points for North Carolina Cases:

• Seven years is now the default deadline for most MAR claims

• Newly discovered evidence remains an exception, but it is narrowly construed

• Capital cases are treated differently and follow separate rules

• Federal habeas deadlines are unchanged and still apply independently

Attorney Insight

The biggest danger right now is delay.

Courts have not yet fully defined how strictly this new deadline will be enforced, but that window will not stay open for long. Filing earlier preserves options. Waiting invites dismissal.

Tennessee: Guilty Pleas Are No Longer the End of the Road (TN SB0256)

Tennessee has long been one of the most unforgiving states when it comes to post-conviction relief, especially for people who pleaded guilty. For years, courts applied a rigid rule: by entering a guilty plea, a defendant admitted the facts of the case and waived the right to later challenge the conviction based on newly discovered evidence. Even when witnesses recanted or new forensic evidence surfaced, coram nobis petitions were often dismissed before the court ever reached the substance of the claim.

What is “coram nobis?” A writ of error coram nobis (Latin for "let the error come before us") is used when a defendant discovers evidence after trial that proves innocence or shows a fundamental injustice, and they were not at fault for not presenting it earlier. 

For years, Tennessee technically allowed limited challenges to guilty pleas under Tenn. Code § 40-30-117, but those remedies were extremely narrow. In practice, the statute focused on procedural defects and did little for defendants who later uncovered new evidence of innocence. Once a guilty plea was entered, meaningful post-conviction review was still largely out of reach.

But that rule is now gone.

On April 24, 2025, the Tennessee legislature enacted Public Chapter 282, through Senate Bill 0256 and House Bill 0601, which explicitly allows defendants who entered guilty, best-interest, or no-contest pleas to seek relief through a writ of error coram nobis when credible newly discovered evidence emerges. The statute took effect upon becoming law on April 24, 2025.

TN Public Chapter 282 (SB 256/HB 601): is a significant piece of criminal justice reform that allows defendants who entered guilty, no contest, or best interest pleas to petition for relief if they discover new evidence of innocence. 

What This Means For You: Although the statute became effective in April 2025, its practical impact is only now beginning to take shape. For much of 2025, trial courts were still operating under old assumptions, and relatively few cases tested the scope of the new law. As a result, there is very little appellate guidance on how broadly or narrowly Tennessee courts will interpret this expansion.

For 2026, prosecutors will begin pushing limiting arguments, trial courts will issue more substantive rulings, and appellate courts will start defining what qualifies as “new” evidence and how demanding the standard should be in plea cases. In other words, the law is on the books, but its real contours will be shaped by litigation happening now and over the coming year.

What TN Public Chapter 282 Now Allows (and What It Does Not)

Public Chapter 282 does not guarantee relief, and it does not reopen every guilty plea. What it does is remove the automatic procedural dismissal that previously blocked these claims at the courthouse door. Courts may now consider coram nobis petitions in plea-based cases and evaluate whether the newly discovered evidence would have affected the decision to plead guilty.

At the same time, important limits still apply:

• The one-year filing deadline under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 remains in place

• Evidence must be genuinely new and not discoverable earlier with reasonable diligence

• The evidence must be material enough that it would have changed the plea decision

How Tennessee law evolved from limited guilty-plea challenges under § 40-30-117 to expanded coram nobis relief, with 2026 defining the limits.

Key Takeaways for Tennessee Post-Conviction Relief in 2026:

• Tennessee expanded coram nobis relief for guilty, best-interest, and no-contest pleas in April 2025

• Prior guilty-plea challenges under Tenn. Code § 40-30-117 were narrow and rarely successful without new evidence

• The change removes automatic dismissal of plea-based innocence claims

• Relief is not guaranteed and strict limits still apply

• The one-year filing deadline under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-7-103 remains in place

• Courts will closely scrutinize what qualifies as “new” evidence

• 2026 is when appellate courts will begin defining how far this expansion actually goes

Conclusion: What 2026 PCR Looks Like

2025 changed the rules, and 2026 is when those changes start to show up in real cases. This is the year when courts decide who still gets a hearing and who does not.

In federal court, sentencing enhancements that quietly added years are being narrowed under clarified guidelines. In North Carolina, a system that once allowed delayed challenges now operates on a seven-year clock. In Tennessee, people who pleaded guilty can finally bring certain claims back to court, although the standards they must meet will be demanding and still evolving.

What ties all of this together is timing. These laws do not guarantee relief, but they absolutely control access. Deadlines now exist where none existed before, and missed deadlines can end otherwise valid claims.

If you are still thinking about post-conviction relief the way it worked a few years ago, you are already behind. In 2026, strategy has to be based on current law, not outdated assumptions.

Don't let a deadline bar your freedom.

The laws have changed, and the clock is ticking. Whether you are facing the new 7-year wall in NC or trying to leverage the new 2025 Federal Guidelines, you need a strategy built on today's law, not yesterday's.

Call Adam Rodrigues Law 615-270-2074 now or book your private consultation today.

FAQs

• Can I still challenge my conviction in 2026?

  Yes, but whether you can challenge it depends on where your case was prosecuted and when the conviction became final. Between November and December 2025, new procedural rules changed who gets access to the courts and for how long. In federal cases, clarified sentencing guidelines may support post-conviction arguments in certain circumstances. In North Carolina, most non-capital cases now face a firm seven-year deadline. In Tennessee, guilty pleas are no longer an automatic bar to post-conviction relief, but strict requirements still apply.

  The key point is this: access now depends on timing, not just the strength of the claim.

• What changed in federal sentencing law on November 1, 2025?

  On November 1, 2025, the U.S. Sentencing Commission implemented amendments that clarified how several sentencing enhancements should be applied. These changes focused on areas where courts had disagreed or where enhancements were being applied more broadly than the guideline text intended.

  Key clarifications include:

  • Physical restraint now requires actual physical restriction, not verbal commands or fear

  • Firearm “otherwise used” enhancements require a specific threat or physical contact

  • Traffic stops are not intervening arrests for criminal history purposes

  • Sentencing structure now emphasizes judicial discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

  These changes do not guarantee relief, but they may support arguments that a sentence was calculated under interpretations the Commission has now rejected.

• What is the new deadline for post-conviction relief in North Carolina?

  As of December 1, 2025, North Carolina imposes a seven-year statute of limitations on most non-capital Motions for Appropriate Relief. This is a major shift from prior law, which allowed many claims to be filed years or even decades after conviction.

  There are limited exceptions, including claims based on newly discovered evidence such as DNA or proof of actual innocence.

  However, claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel or trial error are generally subject to the new deadline. Once the clock runs out, courts can dismiss cases without ever addressing the merits.

• Can I challenge a guilty plea in Tennessee now?

  Yes. In April 2025, Tennessee expanded the writ of error coram nobis to allow challenges to guilty, best-interest, and no-contest pleas when newly discovered evidence emerges. This removed the automatic dismissal that previously blocked these claims.

  That said, the remedy remains narrow. Defendants must still show:

  • The evidence is genuinely new

  • It could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence

  • It would have affected the decision to plead guilty

  In 2026, courts will begin defining how demanding these standards are in practice.

• What is a writ of error coram nobis, and when does it apply?

  A writ of error coram nobis is a post-conviction remedy used when evidence discovered after conviction shows a fundamental injustice and was not available earlier through no fault of the defendant. It is often used in cases involving witness recantations, suppressed evidence, or new scientific testing.

  In Tennessee, coram nobis now applies even to guilty pleas, which makes it a powerful but carefully limited tool. It does not replace appeals or habeas petitions, and it is subject to strict filing deadlines.

• Do these changes mean sentences will automatically be reduced?

  No. None of the 2025 or 2026 changes create automatic sentence reductions. What they do is determine whether courts will even consider a claim. Procedural rules control access first, and merits come second.

  Many strong claims fail not because they lack substance, but because they are filed too late or under outdated assumptions. That is why understanding the current rules matters.

• When should I talk to a post-conviction lawyer about 2026 PCR changes?

  As soon as possible as waiting is risky. Courts tend to enforce new deadlines strictly once appellate decisions start setting precedent. In both North Carolina and Tennessee, early cases will shape how these laws are applied, and delay can mean losing options permanently.

  If you are considering post-conviction relief in 2026, strategy should be based on current law and current timelines, not on how things worked in the past.

  Even a strong claim can be barred if it is filed late or under the wrong legal framework.

  A review today with Adam Rodrigues Law can determine:

  • Whether a deadline is approaching

  • Whether a recent change affects your case

  • Whether action is required to preserve your rights

---

Last Updated: December 28, 2025;

Related Blogs & Resources:

• Debunking 5 PCR Myths

• Post Conviction Relief service page