Split Sentences and Parole Ineligibility (Part 5)

by | Aug 23, 2020 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Here, the periods of parole ineligibility imposed as conditions of defendant’s imprisonment do not fall within the Hartye proscription. The trial court did not sentence defendant to a term of imprisonment at a state correctional facility in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(3) or impose a period of parole ineligibility pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b). Instead, the court imposed a county jail sentence as authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(2) and imposed a parole ineligibility period solely as mandated by N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(c). In addition, as implicitly recognized by the court in Guzman, where, as here, a period of parole ineligibility is authorized or required by another provision of the Criminal Code, imprisonment that includes a parole ineligibility period may be imposed as a condition of probation.

We also observe that our Supreme Court has, in another context, directly approved imposition of a split sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(2) that included imprisonment and a period of parole ineligibility. In State v. Pineda, the defendant pleaded guilty to death by auto, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(b), and he was sentenced to a four-year custodial term, subject to a 270-day period of parole ineligibility. At that time, the death by auto statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(b), mandated either imposition of a 270-day period of incarceration or 270 days of community service as part of any sentence imposed for a conviction. Id. at 624.

On the defendant’s direct appeal, we interpreted N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(b) “to mean that the sentencing judge must deprive a defendant of his liberty for at least 270 days by imprisonment without parole, community related service or a split sentence combining the two.” State v. Pineda, (App. Div. 1988). The Court rejected our interpretation and directed that a court sentencing a defendant under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(b) must first determine if imprisonment is appropriate and, if so, decide the ordinary term of imprisonment to be imposed. Where a term of imprisonment is imposed, the Court required imposition of the 270-day period of parole ineligibility provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(b).

A distinction regarding whether community service can be a substitute for incarceration lies in the precise language of the particular statute. The phrase “in the county jail” signifies a sentence that can not be satisfied with community service.

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