State v. Perry
430 N.J. Super. 419
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Defendant Perry was charged in Warren County, New Jersey with 27 counts of car burglary, 2 counts of theft, and 1 count of receiving stolen property (2008–2011).
- Pennsylvania placed Perry on parole violation pending status (PVP) after new Pennsylvania charges (Nov. 2007).
- Warren County requested NJ detainers and notice for possible IAD transport; Perry was informed he could not be transferred due to PVP (Sept. 2008).
- Perry refused to waive extradition and would not sign IAD forms when presented (Aug. 2010).
- Perry ultimately pled guilty to the New Jersey indictment (June 29, 2011) after delays; sentencing followed (July 20, 2011).
- Defendant argues the charges should be dismissed under the IAD for delays and that jail credit and restitution issues remain to be resolved; State appeals denial of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under the IAD was proper given delays | Perry (State) asserts delays were caused by sending state's policy and fall outside enumerated IAD dismissals | Perry contends ongoing delay and noncompliance by sending state warrant dismissal | Dismissal not required; delays attributable to Perry’s conduct and sending-state policy do not mandate dismissal |
| Whether the 120-day IAD clock and related continuances violated Article IV | State argues clock began on transfer and continuances valid to allow trial | Perry asserts clock violation due to delays | No violation; continuances and Article IV timeline did not trigger dismissal |
| Whether Perry is entitled to jail credit for time served in Pennsylvania | State says credit correctly applied; no extra jail time due | Perry argues additional NJ jail credit warranted | No additional NJ jail credit; credits accrue only after completion of PA sentence |
| Whether restitution order validity hinges on ability-to-pay finding | Restitution amount challenged but amount agreed; ability-to-pay unnecessary | Restitution entry requires ability-to-pay finding | Restitution affirmed; lack of explicit ability-to-pay finding not fatal |
| Whether the IAD dismissal ruling should be remanded for recalculation or other issues | N/A | N/A | Not required; issues resolved |
Key Cases Cited
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2001) (IAD purpose and expeditious disposition of detainers)
- State v. Hoimes, 214 N.J. Super. 195 (App. Div. 1986) (extradition requests and Article III compliance requirements)
- State v. Miller, 299 N.J. Super. 387 (App. Div. 1997) (continuances allowed before dismissal under IAD)
- Pero, 370 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 2004) (IAD processing and dismissal standards; public policy considerations)
- State v. Carreker, 172 N.J. 100 (2002) (jail credit for time served on related sentences)
- Hugley, 198 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1985) (timing of jail credits in related detainer context)