State v. Hester, 186 A.3d 236

Four defendants (Hester, Warner, McKinney, Roundtree) were convicted of sex offenses and sentenced under the pre-2014 statute to a special sentence of community supervision for life (CSL) after completing prison terms.
Under the law in effect when they were sentenced, violations of CSL general conditions (e.g., reporting, residence approval, curfew) were fourth-degree crimes punishable by up to 18 months and required prosecution with full criminal procedures.
In 2014 the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 to (1) make CSL violations third-degree crimes with a presumption of imprisonment and (2) convert CSL to parole supervision for life (PSL), allowing the Parole Board to revoke release and return offenders to prison.
After the 2014 Amendment took effect, each defendant was indicted for CSL violations as third-degree offenses and faced increased penalties and conversion to PSL.
Trial courts and the Appellate Division dismissed the indictments, holding that retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment violated the Federal and New Jersey Ex Post Facto Clauses; the State sought review in the Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses	The Amendment punishes new, subsequent crimes (CSL violations) committed after the Amendment; defendants were on notice and thus committed new offenses subject to the new penalties	The Amendment retroactively increases punishment for conditions integral to the original sentence (CSL), disadvantaging defendants for crimes committed earlier; it relates back to the predicate offense	The Court held the retroactive application violates Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses and affirmed dismissal of indictments

Riley v. Parole Bd., 219 N.J. 270, 98 A.3d 544 (N.J. 2014) (CSL and PSL are punitive; post‑sentence supervision is punishment)
State v. Perez, 220 N.J. 423, 106 A.3d 1212 (N.J. 2015) (conversion of CSL to PSL applied retroactively increases punishment and violates Ex Post Facto)
Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (postrevocation penalties relate to the original offense for ex post facto analysis)
Greenfield v. Scafati, 390 U.S. 713 (1968) (affirming district court injunction against retroactive parole sanctions that disadvantaged the parolee)
Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (1981) (retroactive changes that disadvantage eligibility for release can violate Ex Post Facto)
Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925) (law that makes punishment more burdensome after commission of the crime is ex post facto)
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798) (early articulation of ex post facto prohibition)