State v. LH, 206 N.J. 528

Defendant L.H. committed the 1994 sexual assault; victim could not identify him, DNA evidence was not matched until 2004 and confirmed in 2008.
Defendant pled guilty in 2009 to the 1994 assault; sentencing court awarded extensive gap-time credits (2,145 days) plus jail credit totaling more than the seven-year sentence.
State appealed, Appellate Division affirmed gap-time credits, concluding statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(2)) allowed credits even though defendant was not serving a sentence for a later offense at sentencing for the earlier offense.
Supreme Court reversed, remanding to vacate all gap-time credits and issue a corrected judgment; holds no gap-time credit should have been awarded in these facts.
Justice Long concurred separately, agreeing defendant is not entitled to gap-time credits and rejecting an overlap requirement in the statute, emphasizing deterrence against prosecutorial manipulation.
Key factual timeline: 1994 assault; 1995 endangering, 1998 sexual assault, 2001 drug offense; sentences completed long before 2009 sentencing for the 1994 offense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether gap-time credit under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(2) applies when the defendant is not serving a sentence for a later offense at the time of sentencing for the earlier offense.	L.H. and Appellate Division treated gap-time as available.	Gap-time requires time served on a prior sentence and a later sentence; the statute should apply even if not currently serving a later sentence.	Gap-time credit not available; defendant not currently serving a sentence at the time of sentencing for the 1994 offense, so no gap-time credit.
Does the gap-time provision plainly require overlap between sentences to trigger credit, or can it be limited as argued by the State and concurring opinions?	Credit should be awards under the statute as written to avoid manipulation.	Overlapping requirement not supported by strict reading of the statute; alignment with purpose to deter manipulation.	Court rejects overlap requirement; holds gap-time only triggers when current sentencing involves concurrent/consecutive determination for a prior offense, but in this case the defendant was not serving a sentence for a later offense.

State v. Carreker, 172 N.J. 100 (2002) (three-prong gap-time test and statutory interpretation guidance)
State v. Franklin, 175 N.J. 456 (2003) (establishes three-prong test for gap-time credit and purpose to prevent prosecutorial delay)
Booker v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 136 N.J. 257 (1994) (gap-time framework and deterrence rationale)
State v. Lawlor, 222 N.J. Super. 241 (App.Div. 1988) (early authority on gap-time credit not requiring overlap)
State v. Ruiz, 355 N.J. Super. 237 (Law Div. 2002) (gap-time credit application in non-overlap context)
Guaman, 271 N.J. Super. 130 (App.Div. 1994) (commentary on gap-time credit application)
State v. Garland, 226 N.J. Super. 356 (App.Div. 1988) (gap-time discussion related to timing of credits)
State v. Hodde, 181 N.J. 375 (2004) (strict construction context for criminal statutes)