State v. C.H., 154 A.3d 1262

Defendant was charged in two separate Warren County indictments for crimes against two minors; he remained in pre-sentence custody for 1007 days.
Indictment 1 (two counts of second-degree sexual assault, two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, one count of endangering the welfare of a child) involved D.H.; Indictment 2 (one count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, two counts of second-degree sexual assault, one count of endangering the welfare of a child) involved D.M.
Convictions were entered in two separate juries and then sentenced in a consolidated proceeding; Indictment 2 sentencing included a ten-year term with 85% NERA and 3-year endangering sentence; Indictment 1 sentences were four sentences (three concurrent with each other) but were ordered to run consecutively to Indictment 2.
The trial court applied 1007 days of jail credit only to Indictment 2; defense objected to denying jail credit for Indictment 1.
Appellate Division remanded, holding defendant was entitled to 1007 days jail credit on both indictments, totaling 2014 days.
This Court holds that only 1007 days of jail credit are due, to be applied to the front end of the aggregate sentence, and that double jail credit is not appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jail credit applies for consecutive sentences on separate indictments	State argues Hernandez does not support double credit here.	Hernandez permits jail credits against each case when time spent pre-sentence is time served for both.	Double jail credit not allowed; credits applied to front end of aggregate sentence.
How jail credits should be allocated when sentences are consolidated but imposed under separate indictments	State contends credits should not double-count time; they should not distort the consecutive nature.	Hernandez requires applying time against all sentences to avoid inequity.	Credits applied to front end of aggregate sentence; no double credit.
Whether Hernandez should be modified or limited in the context of separate indictments	State seeks clarifications to prevent windfall from Hernandez.	Defendant argues Hernandez should control; no change in precedent.	Hernandez is modified: no double credit for consecutive sentences under separate indictments; apply to front end.

State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (N.J. 2011) (relations between Rule 3:21-8 jail credits and multiple sentences; front-end aggregation)
State v. Rawls, 219 N.J. 185 (N.J. 2014) (jail credits as mandatory pre-sentence credits against custodial time)
Mastapeter v. State, 290 N.J. Super. 56 (App. Div. 1996) (jail credits reduce front-end of sentence; policy of equal treatment)