State v. Carlos Bolvito (071493)
217 N.J. 221
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Defendant Bolvito pled guilty to three sex offenses—first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child—predicate offenses triggering SCVTF penalties.
- The trial court imposed a $4,000 SCVTF penalty in addition to other penalties but did not provide any statement of reasons or factors for the amount.
- The plea form and colloquy acknowledged the SCVTF penalty, but the plea did not specify how the amount would be determined beyond the stated maximums.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, remanding only for restitution reconsideration, and the case was certified to address whether ability to pay may be considered in determining the SCVTF penalty amount.
- The Supreme Court held that SCVTF penalties are mandatory for predicate offenses, but the amount may be set anywhere within the statutory range and must reflect the offense and the defendant’s ability to pay, with a requiring statement of reasons for the amount.
- The judgment was reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the SCVTF penalty consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SCVTF penalties are mandatory for predicate offenses. | Bolvito argues the court must consider ability to pay and that penalties may not be fixed. | State contends penalties are mandatory within statutory maximums; amount may vary within range. | SCVTF penalties are mandatory, but the amount may be set within the statutory range. |
| Whether a court may consider ability to pay when setting the SCVTF penalty amount. | Court should use ability to pay as primary consideration. | Ability to pay may be considered as a factor, not controlling, within the range. | Courts should consider the defendant’s ability to pay when determining the penalty amount. |
| Whether the court must provide a statement of reasons for the SCVTF penalty amount. | Court must provide a statement of reasons for the amount within the statutory parameters. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (guidelines for discretionary sentencing decisions; balance punishment and uniformity)
- State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010) (statutory interpretation and purpose; reading statutes in context)
- State v. Megargel, 143 N.J. 484 (1996) (requirement of identifying factors and reasons in sentencing decisions)
- State v. Marshall, 130 N.J. 109 (1992) (need for a statement of reasons to protect appellate review)
- Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Melcar Util. Co., 212 N.J. 576 (2013) (mandatory vs. discretionary language; 'shall' presumed mandatory)