Recovery Court and Disorderly Persons Offenses (Part 1)

by | Nov 16, 2024 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

On July 3, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Matrongolo. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 concerned whether people charged with disorderly persons offenses are eligible for Recovery Court.

Judge Natali wrote for the Court in relevant part: We are satisfied the foregoing reveals a lack of support for the court’s conclusion a defendant is ineligible for Recovery Court if the underlying conviction is for a DP or PDP offense. The eligibility requirements for the two tracks are clear and simple: Track One applies to those eligible for special probation and Track Two applies to those eligible for regular probation. 2022 Manual at 9.

As we recently explained: Every candidate falls under one of two distinct and mutually exclusive tracks. To determine legal eligibility, the trial court must first determine whether the defendant is a Track One or Track Two candidate.

A defendant is a Track One candidate if, and only if, he or she is presently subject to the presumption of imprisonment in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) or to a mandatory term of parole ineligibility. If the defendant is not presently subject to the presumption of imprisonment or to a mandatory term of parole ineligibility, he or she is a Track Two candidate.

The Prosecutor points to no law, decision, or directive, nor has our independent research uncovered any, that adds to the Track Two criteria the condition that the person be sentenced for a “crime.”

Further, contrary to the court’s decision, a plain reading of the legal eligibility provision of the Manual demonstrates it was not “simply contrasting the two paths into the program.” Rather, the Manual’s drafters clearly titled the section “Legal Eligibility” and declined to condition eligibility on any other requirements. The fact that the program originated from a desire to reduce the number of prison-bound drug offenders does not negate the clearly defined legal eligibility requirements for the two tracks, eligibility for special or regular probation, which have remained consistent. As noted, since its inception, Recovery Court has always encompassed both prison-bound and non-prison-bound defendants.

This issue has never been decided by our courts because the heavy requirements of Recovery Court are almost always going to outweigh the penalties for a disorderly persons offense. Most disorderly persons offenses resolve with “fines only” sentences. Rare cases also call for a term of probation. The rarest cases call for jail time since the maximum penalty allowed is a six-month jail sentence.

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
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
....and his Dog Gonzo is a great attorney.
Duane H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am writing to share my experience working with Fred From the very beginning, he provided outstanding service and demonstrated a high level of professionalism. He was attentive to my needs, communicated clearly, and always made sure I understood each step of the process. What impressed me most was his efficiency—he handled my case quickly without compromising on quality. His dedication and expertise gave me confidence and peace of mind throughout the entire process. I highly recommend Fred to anyone seeking reliable and effective legal support. His commitment to his clients and ability to deliver results promptly truly set him apart.
Aida F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am thankful and fortunate to have had Fred represent me as counsel. His expertise, responsiveness and professionalism are second to none. I was more than satisfied with the outcome of my case and the level of service Fred's practice provided.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Excellent advice. Clam and accretive. Handled my case professionally and efficiently. Thank you for the great service. -D.
Danni K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
My charges were dismissed and he quickly got an expungement for me. He's worth way more than what I paid for. I will always be grateful. He never missed a single call, text or email from me. He also keeps me informed of all checkpoints
Bre D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional, always available to answer any questions I had. Plus, I didn't lose my license all thanks to him. Great lawyer overall
David B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is knowledgeable and he has great working relationships with the courts. He HONESTLY is seeking the best deal for you he is not all about the money!! Thanks Fred you saved me BIG TIME!!
Casey B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good
Nazario B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto handled my case very well. I was happy with outcome. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to any of my friends or family.
David V