Changes to Marijuana-Related Expungements (Part 7)

by Fred Sisto | Feb 16, 2020 | Blog, Criminal Law, Drug Crime, Marijuana, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

Amendments to 2C:52-2 continued as follows:

b. Records of conviction pursuant to statutes repealed by this Code for the crimes of murder, manslaughter, treason, anarchy, kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, arson, perjury, false swearing, robbery, embracery, or a conspiracy or any attempt to commit any of the foregoing, or aiding, assisting or concealing persons accused of the foregoing crimes, shall not be expunged.

Records of conviction for the following crimes specified in the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice shall not be subject to expungement: N.J.S.2C:11-1 et seq. (Criminal Homicide), except death by auto as specified in N.J.S.2C:11-5 and strict liability vehicular homicide as specified in section 1 of P.L.2017, c.165 (C.2C:11-5.3); N.J.S.2C:13-1 (Kidnapping); section 1 of P.L.1993, c.291 (C.2C:13-6) (Luring or Enticing); section 1 of P.L.2005, c.77 (C.2C:13-8) (Human Trafficking); N.J.S.2C:14-2 (Sexual Assault or Aggravated Sexual Assault); subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:14-3 (Aggravated Criminal Sexual Contact); if the victim is a minor, subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:14-3 (Criminal Sexual Contact); if the victim is a minor and the offender is not the parent of the victim, N.J.S.2C:13-2 (Criminal Restraint) or N.J.S.2C:13-3 (False Imprisonment); N.J.S.2C:15-1 (Robbery); N.J.S.2C:17-1 (Arson and Related Offenses); subsection a. of N.J.S.2C:24-4 (Endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child, or causing the child other harm); paragraph (4) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4 (Photographing or filming a child in a prohibited sexual act or for portrayal in a sexually suggestive manner); paragraph (3) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4 (Causing or permitting a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act or the simulation of an act, or to be portrayed in a sexually suggestive manner); subparagraph (a) of paragraph (5) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4 (Distributing, possessing with intent to distribute or using a file-sharing program to store items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child); subparagraph (b) of paragraph (5) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:24-4

(Possessing or viewing items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child); section 8 of P.L.2017, c.141 (C.2C:24-4.1) (Leader of a child pornography network); N.J.S.2C:28-1 (Perjury);

N.J.S.2C:28-2 (False Swearing); paragraph (4) of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:34-1 (Knowingly promoting the prostitution of the actor’s child); section 2 of P.L.2002, c.26 (C.2C:38-2) (Terrorism); subsection a. of section 3 of P.L.2002, c.26 (C.2C:38-3) (Producing or Possessing Chemical Weapons, Biological Agents or Nuclear or Radiological Devices); and conspiracies or attempts to commit such crimes.

Records of conviction for any crime committed by a person holding any public office, position or employment, elective or appointive, under the government of this State or any agency or political subdivision thereof and any conspiracy or attempt to commit such a crime shall not be subject to expungement if the crime involved or touched such office, position or employment.

c. In the case of conviction for the sale or distribution of a controlled dangerous substance or possession thereof with intent to sell, expungement shall be denied except where the crimes involve:

1. Marijuana, where the total quantity sold, distributed or possessed with intent to sell was less than one ounce;
2. Hashish, where the total quantity sold, distributed or possessed with intent to sell was less than five grams; or
3. Any controlled dangerous substance provided that the conviction is of the third or fourth degree, where the court finds that compelling circumstances exist to grant the expungement. The prosecutor may object pursuant to section 11 of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), N.J.S.2C:52-11, N.J.S.2C:52-14, or J.S.2C:52-24.

This section of 2C:52-2 is largely unchanged. The one difference in language relates to the standard change for expedited expungements, i.e. the reference to “the public interest” now reads “compelling circumstances.”

      Excellent rating  
 Based on 288 reviews 
    
  
 
 
      Affordable, knowledgeable, efficient.
     Deb W 
 
 
 
 
    Highly  professional

The lawyer Frederick is a serious and professional person, he helped me a lot in my case, I recommend him a lot to help you too, he is always in contact with you explaining the process, a very patient and kind person.
     Ca 
 
 
 
 
    I recently utilized his exceptional services and would highly recommend them to anyone seeking legal advice.
     Mark A 
 
 
 
 
    Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service.

Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again.

For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.”

Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released  “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly  instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
     Ximena C 
 
 
 
 
    Fred is an excellent attorney. Even though we did not initiate the official pleading process, he deep dived into researching and sorted out my questions without any consultation fee. I highly recommend him!
     Qianru Z 
 
 
 
 
    gives great heads up info--- and helps public get around safely
     Sun B 
 
 
 
 
    Fred has helped me on two different occasions with his legal practice and is a top notch attorney. He also gives great advice as a person to go with his legal expertise. Highly recommend anyone looking for an attorney to contact Fred!
     Connor W 
 
 
 
 
    Keeps me well informed ! Thank you
     Koy T 
 
 
 
 
    Fred has been exceptional as my counsel. Represented me with professionalism and understanding. Fred does communicate with you and gives the best he can. I recommend Fred if you need a good professional understanding straight forward counsel. Thank you Fred!
     Mohammed 
 
 
 
 
    Great site Fred. keep up the good work at informing the public of these unlawful check points.
     Mark H