18 A.3d 1087
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second-degree official misconduct and second-degree pattern of official misconduct, covering conduct from 2003 to 2007.
- Plea agreement required concurrent seven-year terms with five years’ parole ineligibility, plus various financial and employment forfeitures.
- Judge ordered pension forfeiture under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1, along with restitution and other penalties.
- Defendant’s pension consisted of 28 years 8 months service, with 12+ years in PERS transferred to TPAF; he earned 16 years 1 month directly in TPAF.
- Statute mandates forfeiture of pension benefits earned in the fund that covers the office involved, but the scope and duration were contested on appeal.
- State challenges the start date and breadth of the forfeiture; defendant challenges scope across funds and restitution interplay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of pension forfeiture under 43:1-3.1. | State argues broader forfeiture across all benefits in the relevant fund. | Steele argues the statute limits forfeiture to benefits earned in the fund that covered his office. | Forfeiture limited to benefits earned in the fund covering the office; cannot reach benefits from other funds. |
| Commencement date for forfeiture period. | State contends the forfeiture can start at the offense date. | Steele contends the court erred by restricting to first act or by extending differently. | Forfeiture must commence from the offense date, not earlier or later than the period tied to the offense. |
| Effect on transferred pension (PERS) when moved to TPAF. | State seeks forfeiture of all pension benefits earned in the fund covering the offense. | Steele argues the PERS portion transferred to TPAF should not be forfeited. | Portion earned as a member of PERS and transferred to TPAF is not subject to forfeiture under 43:1-3.1. |
| Remand on judgment amendments and restitution. | Remand needed to implement proper pension forfeiture scope. | Remand needed to adjust related restitution. | Judgment vacated to amend to reflect only the TPAF-based forfeiture and reconsider restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (N.J. 2005) (statutory interpretation governs proper application of forfeiture law)
- In re Tenure Hearing of Young, 202 N.J. 50 (N.J. 2010) (avoid absurd statutory constructions; preserve purpose of statute)
- State v. Kennedy, 419 N.J. Super. 475 (App.Div. 2011) (discusses appellate review of pension-forfeiture issues; context for this case)