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
Fred is a good lawyer, he is really young yet made me feel confident that my lawful rights were being protected, and investigated all avenues when there was potential they weren't. He is very knowledgeable, and offered great peace of mind in such a distressing situation. I always felt like he had my back throughout the whole process, supporting aspects to my case that didn't even fall within his scope. I would highly recommend Fred.
Amy L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Using Fredrick Sisto for my attorney was a great experience. He was very easy to understand and work with. Also very good at his job and hard working. I would recommend to anyone who is seeking an attorney!
Thomas L
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very informative.
Patrick S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is the absolute BEST out there!! My experience with him was great he walked me thru everything and got my charges dropped!!!!!
Kat M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thanks for sharing this information.
Joe F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very pleased with my representation by Fred Sisto. He is very honest and explained everything to me in detail. I would recommend him to anybody who is seeking legal representation..
Jeff M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Fred Sisto handled a case regarding my business. He was always available to answer my calls directly and helped me with any questions I had. He also had the case dismissed before I was even able to make it to the court room! I know it can be difficult when finding an attorney but I know I made no mistake choosing the law offices of Frederick Sisto, I highly recommend him!!
Kari J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred, Thank you for the notifications on the DUI stops.
Joe F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great!!! , got my case handled in the exact manner that I was told and would recommend to everyone else in need of legal representation .
Raumelis R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred's services has been more than exceptional. He provided updates on my case. He got me one of the best outcomes i could have asked for, and has represented me twice with amazing results. Fred can work his magic on your case just as he did for me
Chris K