114 A.3d 1029
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2015Background
- In March 2010 Anthony F. Stalter obtained controlled-substance prescriptions by fraud and pleaded guilty to a third-degree offense; sentence included one year probation with 30 days jail.
- After violating probation, Stalter entered Drug Court and was placed on Track 2 (general probation) and ordered to complete a residential treatment program at Integrity House.
- Stalter completed 217 days at Integrity House, then moved to a halfway house and later was discharged for program violations; a bench warrant issued and he was arrested and pled guilty to violating probation.
- At sentencing on the probation violation, Stalter received three years incarceration and was given 201 days jail credit for time in actual jail, but the trial judge denied credit for the 217 days at Integrity House.
- The court denied credit because Track 2 participants are sentenced under general sentencing provisions (N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1) and do not qualify for the jail-credit and "official detention/escape" protections in the special-probation statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Stalter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time at Integrity House counts as "custody" for jail-credit under R. 3:21-8 | Time at Integrity House was not custodial for a Track 2 participant; Track 2 is governed by general sentencing provisions | Time at Integrity House was custody equivalent and thus entitles Stalter to jail credit under R. 3:21-8 | Denied: Track 2 status precludes statutory jail-credit under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 and Reyes-type custody showing not shown |
| Whether Track 2 Drug Court participants are entitled to statutory jail-credit/escape protections | Statute's credit/escape provisions apply only to Track 1 (special probation) defendants | Treating Track 2 differently violates equal protection | Denied: distinction justified by Track 1's exposure to escape prosecution; equal protection challenge rejected |
| Whether remand for factual hearing on whether Integrity House was custodial is required | No remand necessary; record lacks basis to show custody-equivalence | Requested remand to develop factual record under Reyes | Denied: no factual basis in record suggesting Integrity House met Reyes custodial criteria for Track 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (2007) (overview of New Jersey Drug Court structure and authority)
- State v. Reyes, 207 N.J. Super. 126 (App. Div. 1986) (time in residential program counts as jail credit only if substantially equivalent to custody)
- State v. Clay, 230 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 1989) (legislative reaction led to statutory credit for special probation participants)
- State v. Soricelli, 156 N.J. 525 (1999) (presumption of imprisonment for first/second-degree offenses explained)
- State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div. 2013) (distinguishing special probation from regular probation in Drug Court context)