The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: Each local system makes its own determinations about who is required to register, which crimes are registerable offenses, what information offenders must provide, and what consequences are inherent in the scheme. In deciding whether an out-of-state registrant has standing to bring a motion to terminate in New Jersey, the Megan’s Law judge must necessarily consider the statutory scheme of the jurisdiction where the registrant resides. This ensures a registrant has a forum to bring a motion consistent with the determinations of both jurisdictions regarding what is in the best interests of protecting its people.
While some jurisdictions have enacted registration schemes like New Jersey and Montana, where an application to terminate must be decided by the court where a registrant resides, other jurisdictions determine the duration of registration based on the obligation in the state of conviction. For example, some states may require a resident with an out-of-state conviction to register for as long as the registration obligation in the state of conviction, or the longer of the two states’ registration obligations, or until the state of conviction terminates the obligation. In those instances, subject to the Megan’s Law judge’s individual determination, we presume a registrant would have standing to bring a motion to terminate in New Jersey. In those scenarios the registrant has a stake in the outcome of the motion because it would affect the obligation to register in the state where the registrant resides.
To the extent we have not expressly addressed any issues raised by J.R., it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
The last sentence indicates that the Registrant’s attorney likely submitted voluminous brief(s) raising numerous issues. The Appellate panel is also protecting itself from a New Jersey Supreme Court remand with instructions to address unaddressed issues.