Freehold

Published on: February 24, 2024

SUPREME COURT ALLOW PLEA BARGAINING ON DWI IN NEW JERSEY

On February 23, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court settled the ongoing fight with the legislature over the endorsement of a new statute permitting plea bargaining to allow for ignition interlock devices in minor drunk driving cases. Last week, Judge Grant put out an order that no DWIs were allowed to be plea bargained. However, the Supreme Court disagrees.

Judge Rabner said in the order that “because no actual case is before the court, we do not make a finding on that issue. At the same time, we recognize that the amendment reflects a policy statement by the legislature, which is within its prerogative, related to plea bargaining in municipal courts.”

The question remains how will this new plea bargaining rule will be applied within the municipal courts as it is new ground for everyone involved- judges, defense attorneys and prosecuors. At the very least, it should allow attorneys the ability to the fight for their clients and allow the judges and prosecutors to make fair and just decisions in the appropriate situations.

Published on: February 19, 2023

Prior Marijuana Conditional Discharges- No longer a Bar to Pre Trial-Intervention, PTI

By Tara Breslow-Testa, Esq.

On February 14, 2023, the Supreme Court finally made the right decision allowing those with prior marijuana conditional discharges the possibility to get into PTI. https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/court-opinions/2023/a_64_65_21.pdfIt is no longer an automatic bar to PTI if you have a prior conditional discharge for marijuana. The court held that people who received pre-CREAMMA conditional discharges for specified marijuana offenses — just like persons who had pre-CREAMMA convictions for those marijuana offenses are no longer categorically precluded from future admission into PTI. Rather, courts and prosecutors must consider the merits of their PTI applications, without regard to the existence or circumstances of the earlier marijuana-related conditional discharges. The holding harmonizes CREAMMA and its manifest legislative intent with the pre-existing general language of the PTI and expungement statutes, including the Legislature’s command in CREAMMA to apply its reforms to “any case” that arose before its enactment.

Finally, the Court made the right decision and notes that this is an exceptional situation involving a sweeping new statute that it has endeavored to harmonize sensibly with pre-existing laws. In the past year, many of my clients ran into issues when they had a prior CD for marijuana, and this is no longer a bar. This also calls for consistency throughout the State with how these applications are to be handled by the Courts and Prosecutors Offices. The real issue remains that even though a prior CD can no longer be sited at a bar anymore will Prosecutors and probation officers still let the prior CD influence their decisions to allow applicants into PTI. https://www.breslowdefense.com/tara-breslow-esq.html

PTI applicants can be barred for a variety of reasons, so it is important to be prepared for your interview and have counsel advise you about the process. https://www.breslowdefense.com/pre-trial-intervention-pti.html Call Tara Breslow for a free consultation 732 784 2880 or email tara@breslowdefense.com.

Published on: September 28, 2020

Can a Registrant be Removed from Megan’s Law if another offense is Committed ?

By Tara Breslow-Testa, Esq.

Under NJSA 2C:7-2(f), a Registrant can petition to be removed from Megan’s Law after 15 years if they have not committed a new offense, and they are found not to be a threat to the community. Prior to a recent Supreme Court ruling, if a registrant committed a subsequent offense after being placed on Megan’s Law, the 15 years time period would simply commence again after the subsequent new offense. However, in March of 2020, in State in the Interest of HD and JM, the Supreme Court ruled that the Registrant must remain completely offense free during the 15 year period in order to qualify for registrant relief commencing upon conviction, adjudication or release from confinement.

The procedural history of JM and HD are as follows. In 1994, J.M. pled guilty to third-degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and it 1997, H.D. pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. Both JM and HD were sentenced to probation and required to register as sex offenders. Subsequent to being placed on Megan’s Law, HD pled guilty to failure to register as a convicted sex offender in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a) and (e). JM pled guilty in 2001 to a computer crime in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-29. Both were sentenced to probation and neither has been convicted of anything since those dates.

In 2017, after 15 years had passed they both filed for Removal from Megan’s Law Registration, and their motions were denied at the Superior Court level. They both appealed and the Appellate court reversed the State Court’s decision, determining that subsection(f) is ambiguous as to whether its requirement of fifteen years of offense-free conduct resets following an offender’s subsequent criminal conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate decision, which essentially means that JM and HD are now barred from removal from Megan’s Law.

Continue reading →