Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 3)

by | Apr 14, 2021 | Blog, Criminal Law, Drug Crime, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Although a Drug Court judge is not bound by a substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation for in-patient drug treatment, the evaluation is a critical component of a decision to grant or deny admission into the Drug Court program. The substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation can assist in the judge’s consideration of a defendant’s need for treatment and the probable effect of any addiction on future criminal behavior. A remand is necessary for the Drug Court judge to consider the substance abuse evaluator’s report.

The State candidly acknowledged at oral argument before us that a full review was not done in some of the cases in this consolidated appeal because the trial court did not have the benefit of TASC evaluations. A remand is therefore needed in any case before us where the trial court did not consider a TASC evaluation unless the record clearly shows that the defendant is a Track One candidate who is legally ineligible for special probation and thus categorically ineligible for admission to Drug Court.

As we have noted, as a general proposition, we review a sentencing court’s decision to admit or deny admission to Drug Court for an abuse of discretion. By its action to remove the prosecutorial veto, the Legislature clearly evinced an intention to rely on a judge’s discretion and ability to better determine admission without continuing that right to veto. Appellate courts review sentences only to determine: “(1) whether the exercise of discretion by the sentencing court was based upon findings of fact grounded in competent, reasonably credible evidence; (2) whether the sentencing court applied the correct legal principles in exercising its discretion; and (3) whether the application of the facts to the law was such a clear error of judgement that it shocks the conscience.”

Since Drug Court’s inception, TASC evaluations have been a critical component. The two main eligibility inquiries are whether an applicant is (1) legally eligible and (2) clinically eligible. The TASC is the most important element of clinical eligibility.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Especially given the situations we had to work under right now with COVID-19, I am glad to have had Fred Sisto represent me. The outcome was much better than anticipated, and he always ensured to maintain proper communication, including not going any further until you 100% understood what's going on, and made a point to keep me updated as much as possible with any of the incoming changes due to quarantine (which was confusing for me at first). Always has your best interests in mind, and an all-around great attorney and person.
Mel C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thank you very much for your information on DUI check points. It is a great asset to the community . 5 stars for sure!
James P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred always publishes where local DWI Checkpoints are going to be! He is also a very prominent Attorney in the Ocean County areas of Point Pleasent and Now a new Brick office!
Michael K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Realmente es un gran abogado, me ayudo muchísimo en todo este proceso y sobre todo que habla español que es una de las cosas importantes para mi. Por que lo hizo mas entendible y facil cada una de las cosas que tenía que hacer y su amabilidad y paciencia para poder explicarme qué tenía que hacer. Además que mi caso fue un éxito gracias a él ya cada uno de sus conocimientos y a su apoyo en todo momento. Lo recomiendo 100%.
Luis A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My boyfriend used Fred Sisto twice and had nothing but positive results. Fred was professional, courteous, and punctual. His office was also very attentive and understanding when he had to speak with them regarding his case. I would recommend using Fred to anyone in the monmouth or ocean county region if they had any criminal case regarding the possession of marijuana
C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was great and very reasonable. He was extremely easy to get ahold of or very quick to return my calls. I was able to get my charge dropped altogether. I highly recommend Fred!
Jasmine C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred was very professional, competent, and a pleasure to deal with I cant thank him enough I highly recommend his services
Mildred T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Recently I encountered some legal matters in the state of New Jersey during my visit and it would have became serious if it was not taken care of. Mr. Sisto and I discussed the case through the phone and exchanged documents through email. Since I was unable to travel back and forth due to restricted time, I have asked Mr. Sisto to handle the case on my behalf. I was very pleased with the result and would recommend Mr. Sisto for any legal matters.
Nam N
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Exquisite business ethic couldn't ask for a better service from a lawyer superior job def recommend to friends family and even strangers
Lukas A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is fast, attentive and excels at what he does. He provides reasonable and professional advice when your are dealing with complex and stressful legal situations. He is straight to the point and does not wast time. I would use him again and definitely recommend.
1093Nj