Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
2053 Woodbridge Avenue - Edison, NJ 08817
(732) 572-0500 www.njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen was included in the “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters

Monday, June 20, 2022

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD GOMES STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MOATAZ M. SHEIRA STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JASON CHIRIBOGA STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MAJU D. BARRY (S-2020-1306-1225, S-2021-0016-1421, 21-08-0745,

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD GOMES STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MOATAZ M. SHEIRA STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JASON CHIRIBOGA STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MAJU D. BARRY (S-2020-1306-1225, S-2021-0016-1421, 21-08-0745, and 21-06-0575, MIDDLESEX AND MORRIS COUNTIES AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-3477-20/A-0198-21/A-0581-21/A-0697-21)

In these appeals, trial courts in two vicinages reached opposite conclusions regarding whether, pursuant to the enactment of the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56, N.J.S.A. 54:47F-1, N.J.S.A. 40:48I-1, N.J.S.A. 18A:61F-1, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-23.1, and N.J.S.A. 2C:52-6.1,1 a defendant may be admitted into pretrial intervention (PTI) where they have a prior conditional discharge for marijuana charges. One court concluded the defendant could not be admitted into PTI, finding the Legislature did not end the PTI eligibility bar where a defendant received a conditional discharge. The other court held that while the Legislature did not amend the PTI statute, the legislative intent of CREAMMA included removing the statutory bar to PTI eligibility where a defendant obtained a conditional discharge.

After reviewing CREAMMA, the PTI statute, the expungement statute, and considering extrinsic evidence, including the legislative histories of each enactment, the court found no evidence the Legislature intended to repeal, amend, or supersede the bar to PTI eligibility following the completion of a supervisory program and granting of a condition discharge. If, in fact, the Legislature intended such a modification, the remedy should be left to it rather than the court, which declines to insert language that is unsupported by the extant legislative evidence and intent. As a result, the court reversed the trial court decisions granting three defendants' admission into PTI and upheld the trial court's ruling barring the fourth defendant PTI admission.

________________________________________________________________
1 L. 2021, c. 16.