State of New Jersey v. Matthew J. Walters
139 A.3d 1214
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 24, 2013 Walters was arrested after an altercation that caused a crash; he remained incarcerated thereafter and was later indicted for aggravated assault and endangering a child (count two later dismissed).
- On Feb. 18, 2014 Walters pled guilty to DWI in municipal court and began serving a 180-day county jail term while already in custody.
- On Apr. 3, 2014 Walters pled guilty to an amended third-degree aggravated assault and to violating probation; sentencing on May 23, 2014 produced a three-year term (with concurrent 365-day VOP term).
- The JOC initially awarded Walters 86 days jail credit and 94 days gap-time credit for the DWI custody toward the assault sentence; no gap-time was awarded on the VOP sentence.
- The State moved for reconsideration arguing Walters had not timely notified it of his gap-time claim and that gap-time is unavailable for Title 39 (motor vehicle) convictions; the trial court revoked the gap-time, relying on State v. French.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(2) entitles Walters to gap-time credit even though the prior custodial sentence was for a Title 39 motor-vehicle violation served in county jail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether gap-time credit under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(2) is available when the prior custodial sentence was for a Title 39 motor-vehicle violation served in county jail | State: Gap-time unavailable for Title 39 convictions; French controls; defendant failed to timely notify State | Walters: Statute requires only prior "imprisonment"; Title 39 silence plus Franklin support gap-time award | Reversed trial court; gap-time credit required because Walters met the statute's three prongs (previous imprisonment, subsequent sentence, both offenses committed before first sentence) |
| Whether French bars gap-time when prior custody was county jail for a municipal Title 39 sentence | State: French limits "imprisonment" to state-prison-related contexts, so gap-time should be denied | Walters: French is distinguishable and not binding; statute is plain and includes prior county jail imprisonment | Court: French was misapplied; French did not decide county-jail Title 39 scenario and is not controlling |
| Whether gap-time requires that the prior sentence be for a Criminal Code offense | State: DWI is not a Criminal Code "offense," so gap-time should not apply | Walters: Statute text only requires prior imprisonment; no Criminal Code-only limitation | Court: Statute does not limit prior imprisonment to Criminal Code convictions; only the subsequent sentence must be for an offense |
| Whether prosecutorial manipulation or notice requirements defeat gap-time entitlement | State: Walters did not notify State and delay considerations counsel denial | Walters: Procedural notice or lack of prosecutorial manipulation does not negate statutory entitlement | Court: Entitlement depends on statutory prongs, not routine fact-finding on manipulation; notice argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Franklin, 175 N.J. 456 (2003) (juvenile incarceration counts as "imprisonment" for gap-time purposes)
- State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011) (gap-time credits are legal questions reviewed de novo and mandatory when statutory elements met)
- State v. French, 313 N.J. Super. 457 (Law Div. 1997) (construed by trial court to limit gap-time to state-prison contexts; App. Div. found it distinguishable)
- State v. Hammond, 118 N.J. 306 (1990) (distinguishes Title 39 liability from Criminal Code principles; does not control gap-time statutory interpretation)