State of New Jersey v. Donnell W. Ancrum, 159 A.3d 433

Defendant Donnell Ancrum pled guilty (open pleas) to second-degree burglary, second-degree robbery, second-degree aggravated assault (serious bodily injury), and third-degree aggravated assault; counts were merged and judge accepted pleas.
Judge found defendant clinically eligible for Drug Court/special probation, relying on merger (aggravated assault merged into robbery) and defendant’s lack of prior disqualifying convictions.
The prosecutor objected, arguing defendant was ineligible for special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 because aggravated assault is a disqualifying offense and merger does not "extinguish" the merged conviction for sentencing-eligibility purposes.
The judge sentenced defendant to five years’ special probation conditioned on Drug Court enrollment; the State appealed, asserting the sentence was illegal.
Appellate court reversed: it held that although the assault conviction merged factually, the statutory prohibition on special probation for aggravated assault survives merger for eligibility purposes, making the sentence illegal.
Because defendant relied on the judge’s erroneous merger ruling in entering his guilty pleas, the Court vacated the guilty pleas and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of merger on disqualifying convictions under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(b)(2)	Merger does not "extinguish" the merged aggravated-assault conviction; therefore special probation is barred	Merger removed the aggravated-assault conviction so only robbery/burglary remain, which b(2) permits for second-degree offenses	Held: Legislature intended to bar aggravated assault regardless of merger; the disqualification survives merger for eligibility purposes, so special probation was illegal
Whether the plea and sentence should be vacated/remanded	Remand for resentencing because plea was voluntary; sentence illegality can be corrected	Vacate pleas because defendant detrimentally relied on judge’s eligibility ruling when pleading	Held: Vacated guilty pleas and reversed sentence because defendant reasonably relied on judge’s mistaken legal ruling; remand for further proceedings

State v. Mirault, 92 N.J. 492 (discusses merger where proofs identical and elements overlap)
State v. Pennington, 273 N.J. Super. 289 (merger for sentencing does not necessarily extinguish convictions)
State v. Dillihay, 127 N.J. 42 (mandatory penalties can survive merger; statutory intent controls)
State v. Wade, 169 N.J. 302 (mandatory sentencing consequences can persist post-merger)
State v. Baumann, 340 N.J. Super. 553 (merger and survival of collateral mandatory penalties)
State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533 (background on special probation statutory scheme)
State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421 (Drug Courts and relationship to special probation)