Expungement of Criminal Arrest in NJ

Fortunately, if you are a law abiding citizen, you can now have old arrests or convictions erased from public records and police folders. Under NJSA 2C:52-1 et seq. past criminal convictions can be expunged erased under certain instances. For example, if you were convicted or pleaded guilty to a disorderly person offense (misdemeanor type) more than 5 years ago, and have not been convicted of anything since, you can have your attorney petition to the Superior Court for an Expungement (Erase and removal) of your criminal record. If you plead guilty to a town ordinance (ex. - Seaside Heights Drinking in Public) you can petition for an Expungement after waiting two years. A Juvenile delinquent/guilty finding for a minor can also be expunged/erased under similar circumstances. In addition, minor drug arrests which resulted in first offender conditional discharge can be erased if one year has passed since termination of probation or conclusion of court proceedings.

Most importantly, arrests on frivolous complaints which did not result in a conviction or if charges were dismissed, can be expunged, without waiting. THE EXPUNGEMENT PETITION

You should contact an attorney experienced with handling expungements in the Superior Court. Your attorney will prepare an expungement petition which under state law must contain substantial background information
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
http://www.njlaws.com/expungement_rev...
http://www.njlaws.com/expungement.html

Pre Trial Intervention for First Offender Criminal Charges

Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI)
Edited by Kenneth Vercammen from Judiciary Information Sheet
If you have no prior criminal charges I recommended that my clients apply for PTI Pre Trial Intervention. Please read the details at http://www.njlaws.com/pre-trial_inter....
We provide our clients with a copy of the Uniform Defendant Intake form used to interview persons by the Criminal Division. We advise clients to please read, fill out. You may wish to fax or bring to my office for review. In Middlesex County, interviews are held at 14 Kirkpatrick St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901. We suggest you call the Criminal Division first to confirm they have your file ready 732-565-5065.

When you go to be interviewed bring the Complaint, pay stubs, photo ID, and your entire file in connection with your matter. You must pay the $75.00 application fee.

In support of your application for PTI the prosecutor and court will later review any letters or documents that are submitted to the Court on your behalf. Please type up and deliver to my office a list of 15 reasons why the prosecutor should approve PTI within 10 days.
I recommend very strongly that you obtain letters from relatives or other individuals who know you who would be willing to write to the Court to indicate that there should not be incarceration. These letters should set forth favorable aspects regarding your life and your future. They should point out some of the good traits that you possess. They should also feel free to put any other reasons why the prosecutor should approve PTI. The letter should include your date of birth and complaint or indictment number. These letters are for your benefit and these instructions should be followed. These letters of reference should go to the Criminal Division, which interviewed you for PTI.
Please bring an extra copy of all letters of reference, pay stubs and any other documents for the court just in case the court has lost the copies. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates Law Office represents people charged with criminal offenses. We provide representation throughout New Jersey. Criminal charges can cost you. If convicted, you can face prison, fines over $10,000, jail, probation over 18 months, and other penalties. Don't give up! Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal cases.

What is the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI)?
The Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) provides defendants, generally first-time offenders, with opportunities for alternatives to the traditional criminal justice process of ordinary prosecution. PTI seeks to render early rehabilitative services, when such services can reasonably be expected to deter future criminal behavior. The PTI program is based on a rehabilitative model that recognizes that there may be an apparent causal connection between the offense charged and the rehabilitative needs of a defendant. Further, the rehabilitative model emphasizes that social, cultural, and economic conditions often result in a defendant’s decision to commit crime. Simply stated, PTI strives to solve personal problems which tend to result from the conditions that appear to cause crime, and ultimately, to deter future criminal behavior by a defendant.

Standardized Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) Procedures

Directive #14-05 promulgates for statewide use a standard set of forms for processing Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) cases through the Criminal and Probation Divisions of the Superior Court. Since December 1, 2005, the following language is used, replacing any corresponding forms now in use in the court vicinages:


What Are the Benefits of the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI)?
If PTI is successfully completed, there is no record of conviction and the defendant avoids the stigma of a criminal record. Although no record of a conviction exists, a defendant may want to file for an expungement to remove any record of the original arrest.

Early intervention allows rehabilitative services to be provided soon after the alleged offense, in an attempt to correct the behavior that led to the offense. Some of the costs associated with the formal court process are eliminated through acceptance into PTI. PTI provides early resolution of a case, which serves the interests of the victim, the public and the defendant. PTI reduces the burden on the court and allows resources to be devoted to more serious criminals.

Criminal Mischief in NJ

2C:17-3 Criminal mischief. a. Offense defined. A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he:(1)Purposely or knowingly damages tangible property of another or damages tangible property of another recklessly or negligently in the employment of fire, explosives or other dangerous means listed in subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:17-2; or(2)Purposely, knowingly or recklessly tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property, including the damaging or destroying of a rental premises by a tenant in retaliation for institution of eviction proceedings.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HOWARD MYEROWITZ A-6032-12T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HOWARD MYEROWITZ 

A-6032-12T2 

Defendant appeals from the judgment of the Law Division finding him guilty of harassment after conducting a de novo review of the trial record developed in the municipal court. We reverse and hold defendant's conviction in the municipal court was void ab initio because he was prosecuted by a private attorney who did not comply with the requirements in State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245 (1995) and codified in Rule 7:8-7(b). Without cross-complaints from complaining witnesses there are no legal grounds to permit a private attorney to represent the State. Public policy favors prosecutions conducted by independent prosecutors. A municipal court judge should obtain an on-the-record statement confirming the prosecutor's recusal in the case. However, if the municipal prosecutor insists on on 

proceeding with the prosecution, the prosecutor's decision should be final. Use of the form approved by the Administrative Director of the Courts is not discretionary. The questions contained therein, including the precise phraseology used, constitutes the expressed method adopted by the Supreme Court to accommodate the public policy concerns expressed in Storm. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WASAN BROCKINGTON A-2760-11T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WASAN BROCKINGTON 

A-2760-11T2 

After police officers observed defendant give a suspected buyer two bags of heroin and two bags of cocaine, they arrested defendant and the suspected buyer and recovered the heroin and cocaine. We reverse his convictions because a police officer testifying as a fact witness was permitted to give his opinion that he observed defendant give heroin and cocaine to suspected buyers in prior transactions in which no drugs were seized. 

Because the matter must be retried, we consider whether evidence of the officer's observations of encounters between defendant and persons who approached him prior to the transaction that resulted in his arrest may be admitted into evidence without the improper lay opinion testimony. We conclude that such evidence is admissible pursuant to Rule 403 as intrinsic evidence because it is relevant to the essential elements of the offenses charged. 

In a separate opinion, Judge Fisher agrees that defendant's convictions must be reversed but disagrees with the conclusion that the officer's observations of defendant's earlier encounters would be admissible at the next trial because that testimony does not qualify either as "other crime" or intrinsic evidence and, even if it did, its prejudicial impact far outweighs any probative value. 

Conditional Dismissal for Shoplifting

Shoplifting 2C:20-11 b
Call Kenneth Vercammen for representation 732-572-0500
www.njlaws.com/shoplifting.htm Shoplifting. Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

Shoplifting shall consist of any one or more of the following acts:
(1) For any person purposely to take possession of, carry away, transfer or cause to be carried away or transferred, any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the possession, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the full retail value thereof.
(2) For any person purposely to conceal upon his person or otherwise any merchandise offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment with the intention of depriving the merchant of the processes, use or benefit of such merchandise or converting the same to the use of such person without paying to the merchant the value thereof.
(3) For any person purposely to alter, transfer or remove any label, price tag or marking indicia of value or any other markings which aid in determining value affixed to any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail mercantile establishment and to attempt to purchase such merchandise personally or in consort with another at less than the full retail value with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some part of the value thereof.
(4) For any person purposely to transfer any merchandise displayed, held, stored or offered for sale by any store or other retail merchandise establishment from the container in or on which the same shall be displayed to any other container with intent to deprive the merchant of all or some part of the retail value thereof.
The state must prove the Defendant had the “knowing” intent to commit a criminal act in a shoplifting case.
The defendant was not aware that there was a criminal act being committed.
NJSA 2C: 4-2. Evidence of mental disease or defect admissible when relevant to element of the offense. Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did not have a state of mind, which is an element of the offense. In the absence of such evidence, it may be presumed that the defendant had no mental disease or defect, which would negate a state of mind, which is an element of the offense.

Winter 2015 Municipal Court Law Review

Winter 2015 Municipal Court Law Review

1 Court cannot consider Sup Mt testimony unless agreed by defendant State v. Gibson 219 NJ 227 (2014)

         Due to the fundamental differences between a pre-trial motion to suppress and a trial on the merits, the best practice is to conduct two separate proceedings. However, the motion record may be incorporated into the trial record if both parties consent and counsel are given wide latitude in cross-examination. Where the evidence from a pre-trial hearing is improperly admitted at the trial on the merits, the correct remedy is remand for a new trial.

2. If mandatory 180 days without parole, can’t get credit for inpatient State v. French 437 NJ Super. 333 (App. Div 2014)

       A sentence of 90 days in jail followed by 90 days in an inpatient drug rehabilitation program does not satisfy the "fixed minimum sentence of not less than 180 days during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole" mandated for the fourth-degree crime of operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for multiple convictions of driving while intoxicated. N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). 

 3. No jail for careless driving unless aggravating factors found

 State v Palma 219 NJ Super. 584 (App. Div 2014)

       The factors outlined by this Court in State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (2010), should be followed by judges in the municipal court and Law Division when imposing sentences for careless driving. 

 4. Failure to read refusal warnings not a defense to DWI State v Peralta 47 NJ Super. 570 (App.Div 2014)

In this appeal, defendant argued the police failure to read to him the standard statement referred to in N.J.S.A. 39:4 50.2(e) – which, in its current iteration, largely but not entirely advises of the consequences of refusing to provide a breath sample – requires reversal of his DWI conviction based solely on an Alcotest reading. The court held this alleged failure was not fatal to the DWI conviction because defendant did not refuse to provide a breath sample.

5.  DWI offenses separated by more than ten years are eligible for “step-down” provision. State v. Revie __ NJ __ (2014) A-31-13

The N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) “step-down” provision can benefit a DWI offender more than once, provided that the defendant’s most recent and current DWI offenses are separated by more than ten years.  In this case, defendant should be sentenced as a second DWI offender with respect to any term of incarceration imposed, and as a third DWI offender with respect to the applicable administrative penalties.

6. Judge must recuse where a reasonable person would harbor doubts about the fairness of the proceedings. State v Dalal   438 NJ Super. 156 (App. Div.2014)

    The court granted leave to examine an interlocutory order, which denied defendant's motion to recuse the Bergen County judiciary from presiding over a prosecution that included a charge of conspiring to murder a Bergen County assistant prosecutor. The issue reached an acute stage when the State informed it would offer evidence at trial that defendant threatened the lives of two Bergen judges. Even though the court acknowledged the trial judge, who was not one of the threatened judges, appeared able to fairly and impartially preside, the court held that defendant is entitled to the relief sought because, in the final analysis, "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice" and a reasonable person would harbor doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

7. DL suspension should not be stayed after conviction unless findings of fact.  State v Robertson 438 N.J.Super. 47 (App. Div. 2014)  

         In this appeal from a DWI conviction, the court rejects defendant's argument that the Alcotest results should have been excluded because he was denied discovery of certain repair records, which were created by the Alcotest's manufacturer, and certain downloaded data, which the State routinely erases. The court concludes the records were not discoverable under Rule 7:7-7, nor did they constitute Brady material.

         The court also addressed the unexplained decisions of both the municipal court and the Law Division to stay defendant's license suspension pending appeal. The court instructs trial courts that any stay of a license suspension after a DWI conviction should be supported by adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and should comply with standards governing the grant of a stay pending appeal set forth in Garden State Equality v. Doe, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013).

8. Criminal charge where later guilty plea to civil violation can be expunged. In the Matter of the Expungement Application of P.H. 436 N.J. Super. 427 (App. Div. 2014)

     The court considered the application of the expungement statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-1 to -32, where petitioner was charged with a fourth degree offense but ultimately agreed to a violation of a statute for which he paid a civil penalty. Petitioner requested expungement of all criminal records, which was granted by the trial judge; records of the civil violation and the file of the NJSPCA were not subject to expungement.

     The State appealed, advancing numerous reasons for reversal, primarily arguing the final disposition controls whether expungement relief is available. Maintaining the initial criminal charges were part of the same file that was disposed of through a plea agreement-allowing defendant to pay a civil penalty, the State asserts expungement cannot be permitted. The court disagreed and concluded petitioner was not convicted and the final disposition was not a plea agreement. Rather, the criminal charges were dismissed. Accordingly, expungement was permitted under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6(a).

9. Expungement of Single Judgment Encompassing Multiple Crimes Denied. I/M/O The Expungement of the Criminal Records of G.P.B. 436 NJ Super. 48 (App. Div. 2014)

The court held that expungement is not permitted by N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a), which allows expungement for a person convicted of "a crime," where the petitioner had pleaded guilty to multiple briberies over the course of two days even though those crimes had a single purpose and even though they were memorialized in a single judgment of a conviction. 

10 Hearsay at Rule 104 hearing not admission at trial for confession to driving State v. Harvey (App. Div. Decided September 9, 2014) A-2921-12T1 Unreported

         Following trial de novo on the record of the Northfield Municipal Court, the Law Division judge found defendant guilty of driving while intoxicated and sentenced him as a third-time offender.  The appellate panel finds that the procedure employed in the Law Division violated defendant's rights to procedural due process and fundamental fairness. There was no basis for a 104 hearing on this record.  Defendant was not seeking to suppress his statements to the arresting officer, nor did he assert that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for driving under the influence.  The officer testified at the 104 hearing that he was dispatched to a doctor's office in response to a call stating that defendant appeared intoxicated and was "gonna drive home."  Defendant made no objection to that testimony, which was not relevant to the issue before the municipal court, namely, whether defendant drank en route to the doctor's office or after he parked the pick-up truck in the parking lot.  That testimony, however, became relevant when the State advanced its alternate theory of operation before the Law Division and the judge relied on it in finding that the State proved defendant's intent to drive away from the doctor's office.  The testimony was hearsay.  The Law Division judge rejected defendant's attempt to counter those proofs with the truncated testimony in the municipal court that he had arranged for someone else to drive him home and his offer to have that person testify in the Law Division.  Because the Law Division determined that there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant under the only theory properly before it, namely that defendant drank en route to his doctor's appointment, that ruling was an adjudication on the merits of the charge entitling defendant to an acquittal. The panel reverses defendant's conviction and remands to the Law Division for entry of a judgment of acquittal.  Source Daily Briefing - 9/10/2014 

11. Calendar of events

 Friday, March 13, 2015

Happy Hour & Networking Social

5:00PM - 7:00PM

Bar Anticipation

703 16th Avenue

Lake Como/ Belmar, NJ 07719

Municipal Court College  March 31 5:30-9 Law Center

May 7 Nuts and Bolts of Elder Law ICLE  7 5-9pm  Law Center

Photo

Handling Drug DWI and Serious Motor Vehicle Cases in Municipal Court seminar

Photo Menzel, Murgado, Brigiani, Reinitz

1 Court cannot consider Sup Mt testimony unless agreed by defendant State v. Gibson

2. If mandatory 180 days without parole, can’t get credit for inpatient State v. French

3. No jail for careless driving unless aggravating factors found

 State v Palma

4. Failure to read refusal warnings not a defense to DWI State v Peralta

5.  DWI offenses separated by more than ten years are eligible for “step-down” provision. State v. Revie

6. Judge must recuse where a reasonable person would harbor doubts about the fairness of the proceedings. State v Dalal  

7. DL suspension should not be stayed after conviction unless findings of fact.  State v Robertson

8. Criminal charge where later guilty plea to civil violation can be expunged. In the Matter of the Expungement Application of P.H.

9. Expungement of Single Judgment Encompassing Multiple Crimes Denied. I/M/O The Expungement of the Criminal Records of G.P.B.

10 Hearsay at Rule 104 hearing not admission at trial for confession to driving State v. Harvey

11. Calendar of events

N.J. Municipal Court  Law Review SUBSCRIPTION INFO

       Please forward a check or voucher for $20.00 to receive the NJ Municipal Court Law Review.  This quarterly newsletter reports changes in New Jersey Court decisions, selected revised motor vehicle and criminal laws, cases, seminars, and information on Municipal Court practice.

         Vouchers accepted. Please send a stamped, self-addressed envelope for their return.  Multiple subscriptions encouraged.

         Please must send a $20.00 check payable to Vercammen & Associates, PC.

If the law firm or municipality no longer wishes to subscribe, please fax or mail us. 

Name:         ______________________________________

(or staple business card here)

Address:      ______________________________________

                 

We also need your email address ________________________

Return to:     

Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.,   

                    Editor- NJ Municipal Court Law Review   

                    2053 Woodbridge Ave.

                    Edison, NJ 08817

                    732-572-0500

                   Tax ID # available

Appeal of Criminal Conviction NJ

A formal notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court within 45 days of judgment (sentencing decision by the Judge). your attorney will be required to file a notice of appeal, other papers with the court, order and read a transcript, prepare a brief and appear in court with you to argue before the Appellate Division. The proceedings before the court are tape-recorded. An outside company is contracted with the court to type up the audiotape. That is called a transcript of proceedings. You must pay the transcript company by preparing a check payable to the transcript company. Under the rule of professional conduct, we will not prepare any paper or draft an appeal until paid in full. Appeals from judgments of conviction in the superior court shall be taken in accordance with Rule 3:23 and 3:24,
The transcript fee requires a down payment of approximately $500.00, the appeal fee is approximately $300.00 and our legal fee will be $5,000.00. Please read the attached details on appeals to the Appellate Division. For your convenience, we accept credit cards by email, over the phone, and PayPal. You can also make appointment to bring in check or cash or pay by credit card during office hours, mail in retainer check or drop off retainer check through front door mail slot on weekends and evenings. We are required to advise you that we will not file the appeal unless all legal fees are paid.

Terroristic threats

2C:12-3. Terroristic threats a. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
b. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out

Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea
1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)
2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty:
a. You will have a criminal record
b. You may go to Jail or Prison.
c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs.
3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail.
4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing.
5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution.
6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.
7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.
8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3
9. You could be put on Probation.
10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your drivers license for 6 months - 2years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30.
11. You may be required to do Community Service.
12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty.
13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction.
14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation.
15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1
16. You may lose your right to vote.
The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense.
Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct:
If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms.
NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;
(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;
(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;
(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.
2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:
a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree;
(2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree;
b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;
(2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree;
c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense;
d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense;
If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500

new case Expungement Application of P H Criminal charge where later gui...

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IBRAHIM J. ELDAKROURY A-5802-12T4

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IBRAHIM J. ELDAKROURY 

A-5802-12T4 

We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal a trial court order dismissing an indictment without prejudice. In affirming the trial court's order, we construed N.J.S.A. 2C:34-7(a), which provides in relevant part that "no person shall operate a sexually oriented business . . . within 1,000 feet of any area zoned for residential use." The statute does not state a mens rea requirement, and we concluded that the standard is "knowingly." We also concluded that the location of the business is a material element of the offense and the State must prove that defendant acted knowingly with respect to that element. Because the State's instructions to the grand jury as to that issue were blatantly wrong, the trial court properly dismissed the indictment without prejudice. We declined to address defendant's constitutional challenge to the statute, which sought a with-prejudice dismissal, because defendant did not file a cross-motion for leave to appeal on that issue. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN D. HARRIS

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN D. HARRIS, III 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SABRINA KING 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT M. KACZAK 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KRISTIN L. MITCHELL 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM HANGSTORFER 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MANDI FILER 

A-3591-12T1/A-4003-12T1/A-5957-12T1/A-6112-12T1/A-0162-13T1/A-1523-13T1(CONSOLIDATED) 

Following our recent opinion in State v. French, 437 N.J. Super. 333 (App. Div. 2014), we hold that a defendant convicted of violating either N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26a or N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b must be sentenced to at least 180 days in jail without parole. French held that a sentence to an in-patient drug rehabilitation program in lieu of jail was an illegal sentence under section 26b. We conclude that, under section 26a or 26b, a sentence to any other non-custodial alternative program, such as a home detention program (HEDS) or a community service program (CSLS), is likewise illegal. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTWAIN T. WATERS A-2021-13T2

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTWAIN T. WATERS 

A-2021-13T2 

Defendant, from Georgia, unlawfully possessed a handgun while driving through New Jersey. A judge denied PTI, and defendant pled guilty, but the sentencing judge granted PTI. However, the statute and rules governing PTI do not contemplate the granting of PTI after a valid guilty plea. 

It is defendant's burden to show that he could lawfully carry the gun in Georgia, and that he was unaware it was illegal to carry it in New Jersey or the states between which he was traveling. His residence in Georgia weighed against PTI, as persons under PTI are ineligible for transfer of supervision under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision. 

The 2008 Attorney General Directive to Ensure Uniform Enforcement of the "Graves Act" does not compel the granting of PTI to a person traveling between states if the person does not meet all the criteria in its example, or if there are other valid bases for denying PTI. Neither party on appeal may use the Attorney General's 2014 Clarification of "Graves Act" 2008 Directive to affect the validity of 

State v. R.K. (A-39-13;

 State v. R.K. (A-39-13; 072712) 

Admission of the fresh-complaint testimony, bolstering of the victim’s credibility, and exclusion of bias testimony constituted reversible error. These errors denied defendant a fair trial. 

State v. John Tate (A-46-13;

 State v. John Tate (A-46-13; 072754) 

The factual basis provided by defendant during the plea colloquy was inadequate to support the guilty plea because it did not satisfy the elements of N.J.S.A. 9:6-1(d). 

State v. Tahir S. Gregory

 State v. Tahir S. Gregory (A-40-13; 072715) 

Defendant did not provide a factual basis sufficient to sustain his guilty plea because he did not admit to all of the elements of the crime or admit facts from which the court could conclude that all of the elements of the crime had been established. 

State v. Richard Perez

 State v. Richard Perez (A-25-13; 072624) 

Defendant’s admissions during the colloquy, in combination with the text messages introduced at the plea hearing, set forth a sufficient factual basis to support his guilty plea. However, because CSL and PSL are non-interchangeable, distinct post-sentence supervisory schemes for certain sex offenders, defendant’s extended-term sentences were illegal and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.