State of New Jersey v. Gregory Maurer
105 A.3d 637
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Defendant Gregory Maurer, age 25, faced multiple indictments for third-degree drug offenses (oxycodone, heroin, cocaine) and other charges; he had prior convictions including a 2008 second-degree weapons possession (Graves Act sentence).
- Maurer applied for admission to Gloucester County Drug Court (special probation) in April 2013; prosecutor denied the application based on his prior weapons conviction.
- The county court affirmed the prosecutor's rejection, treating Maurer as a Track Two applicant under the AOC Manual and holding his weapons history made him ineligible.
- Track One admission follows statutory criteria in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 (special probation for prison‑bound offenders); Track Two follows the AOC Manual for non-statutory candidates.
- The Legislature amended the Drug Court statute in 2012 to broaden access (e.g., removed prosecutor veto and expanded judicial discretion), but the 2002 AOC Manual was not updated and retained stricter Track Two firearm exclusions.
- The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding that the Manual’s stricter Track Two firearm bar produced an unfair anomaly after the 2012 statutory amendments and that Maurer’s application must be reconsidered on the merits (danger to community, drug dependence, full record), not categorically barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may be categorically barred from Drug Court under Track Two because of a prior weapons conviction | Prosecutor: Manual bars Track Two applicants with a history of firearm possession; denial consistent with statute and Manual | Maurer: 2012 statutory amendments liberalize Drug Court access; Manual’s Track Two firearm bar is inconsistent and produces unfair disparity | Court: Manual’s categorical exclusion cannot override statute and legislative intent; remand for individualized consideration |
| Whether legislative amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 require changing Manual criteria | Prosecutor: Manual remains controlling for Track Two; statute and Manual are being properly applied | Maurer: Legislature intended to broaden access; Manual should be read/modified to avoid anomalous results | Court: Legislative changes support updating Manual application; courts should avoid disparities between tracks and apply statute’s liberalizing purpose |
| Whether a prior weapons conviction automatically precludes judicial consideration for special probation | Prosecutor: Prior weapons conviction makes applicant ineligible under Manual | Maurer: Prior facts do not implicate Manual’s exclusion and do not automatically pose community danger | Court: Prior weapons conviction is a factor but not an automatic bar; court must assess dangerousness and other individualized factors on remand |
| Standard of review for applying statute vs. Manual/directives | State: Trial court correctly applied existing Manual criteria | Maurer: Trial court misapplied law given 2012 amendments | Court: De novo review of legal questions; mandates reconsideration consistent with statute and legislative purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (2007) (explains purpose and structure of Drug Courts and special probation)
- State v. Clarke, 203 N.J. 166 (2010) (discusses Drug Court operation and judicial role)
- State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div.) (special probation and Drug Court distinctions)
- State v. Palma, 219 N.J. 584 (2014) (courts must prevent disparate sentencing outcomes)
- State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (2010) (guidance on evenhanded sentencing and disposition)
- Leonardis v. [unnamed], 73 N.J. 360 (1977) (judicial-legislative cooperation in diversion programs and limited judicial review)
- In re P.L. 2001, Chapter 362, 186 N.J. 368 (2006) (distinguishes practice/procedure from substantive law and addresses court directives)