State v. Schubert
212 N.J. 295
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Schubert was charged in 1996 with multiple offenses including sexual assault; he pleaded guilty to sexual assault in 2000 under a plea deal.
- The State dismissed other charges and recommended a third-degree sentencing level with probation; defense acknowledged certain consequences.
- At sentencing in June 2000, the court imposed three years of probation, restitution, probation fee, and employment requirements; the court warned of up to five years for probation violations.
- A judgment of conviction was entered June 23, 2000, mirroring the orally imposed terms; Schubert completed probation and was discharged in 2003.
- In 2007 the Parole Board noted the sentence lacked community supervision for life (CSFL) under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 and requested amendment; the court prepared an amended judgment in 2008 adding CSFL.
- Schubert’s attorney, not representing him at that time, did not object; the State opposed relief; a post-conviction relief petition was filed challenging the amendment as double jeopardy and unfair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could amend the judgment after completion of the sentence | State argues illegal sentence may be corrected any time. | Schubert contends finality applies; amendment after discharge violates double jeopardy. | Amendment after completion violates double jeopardy; improper. |
| Whether CSFL is punitive or remedial for double-jeopardy analysis | State views CSFL as punitive; amendment valid to enforce mandate. | Schubert argues CSFL is punitive and cannot be added post-service. | CSFL is punitive; amendment improper to increase punishment after service. |
| What governs correction of illegal sentences after service | State cites Rule 3:21-10 and case law allowing correction of illegal sentences. | Schubert argues finality and past cases limit post-service corrections. | Illegal sentence may not be corrected to add CSFL after service; finality protections apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murray, 162 N.J. 240 (N.J. 2000) (illegal sentence may be corrected when not completed)
- State v. Laird, 25 N.J. 298 (N.J. 1957) (double jeopardy framing; finality principles)
- Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1947) (sentencing error corrected after incurrence of punishment)
- State v. Horton, 331 N.J. Super. 92 (N.J. App. Div. 2000) (correction of CSFL pre-discharge affirmed; distinguishable fact pattern)
- State v. Cooke, 345 N.J. Super. 480 (N.J. App. Div. 2001) (correction where sentence otherwise illegal; cross-appeal context)
- People v. Williams, 14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010) (New York post-release supervision debates; presence of timing in post-release corrections)
- Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1995) (Megan's Law remedial/regulatory analysis guiding punitive vs remedial distinctions)