The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: However, as we have also noted, we review a sentencing court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes and the Drug Court Manual de novo. Although we generally defer to a sentencing court’s findings of fact and weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, we are not bound by a judge’s […]

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 […]

The three-judge panel continued in relevant part: A Track One candidate can be admitted to Drug Court only if the court sentences the defendant to special probation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. Track One candidates therefore must meet all nine eligibility criteria for special probation set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). If a Track One candidate does not meet any of […]

On February 18, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Cape May County consolidated cases that included State v. Christopher Harris. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 involved whether the nature of a drug court applicant’s prior record made them a “Track One” Drug Court candidate for eligibility and sentencing purposes. Judge Susswein wrote for […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: We are uncertain what the drafters of the Manual meant by stating: “An applicant’s acceptance into drug court should be based on the defendant’s clinical and legal eligibility, in accordance with the drug court statute.” Id. at 10. We acknowledge that the Manual‘s use of “the drug court […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: However, the State argued, and the judge accepted, that three specific references to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 in the legal eligibility section of the Manual make it clear that the AOC purposely created uniformity in Drug Court eligibility under both tracks. These references are: First, among other things, “the legal […]

On February 25, 2020, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Cumberland County case of State v. Tevin Figaro. The principle issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 was whether the “Track One” statutory bars for drug court participation automatically bar “Track Two” applicants. Presiding Judge Messano held in relevant part.  As we noted in Maurer, the 2002 Manual […]

The Appellate panel continued in relevant part: Under federal law, the period of incarceration and ensuing period of supervised release are deemed to be “distinct aspects” of punishment. United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484, 489 (1st Cir. 2005). Accordingly, “courts routinely have held that the combined sentence of years of imprisonment plus years of […]

Judge Susswein continued in relevant part: The circumstances in Haymond that prompted the Court to find an Apprendi violation are clearly distinguishable from the case before us. In stark contrast to § 3583(k), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(f) does not prescribe a new mandatory minimum sentence. Rather, our statute incorporates by reference the minimum and maximum sentences that […]

The Appellate panel continued in relevant part: The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Haymond supports this conclusion. In that case, the Court confronted the application of Apprendi principles in the context of federal supervised release. A jury found the defendant guilty of possessing child pornography. 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. at 2373 […]