State v. FernandezState v. Fernandez
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Michels, Gaulkin, Stern
Defendant Federico R. Fernandez appeals from an order of the Law Division denying his petition for post-conviction relief.
Following plea negotiations, in December 1977, defendant pleaded guilty to (1) rape, a violation of
In April 1978, defendant was sentenced to the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel for indeterminate terms, not to exceed 30 years, for the two rape charges (Third Count of Indictment No. 525-74-M and First Count of Indictment No. 95-77-S), and to the State Prison in Trenton for 3 to 5 years for being armed while committing the rape, as charged in Indictment No. 95-77-S. These sentences were to run concurrently with each other. In addition, defendant was sentenced to Avenel for an indeterminate term, not to exceed 20 years, for sodomy (Second Count of Indictment No. 95-77-S) and to State
In May 1983, defendant moved to be resentenced pursuant to the provisions of
Thereafter, in June 1983, defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to R. 3:22-1, alleging that because he was sentenced under the provisions of Title 2A, and therefore could not receive good time and work credits which those sentenced under Title 2C are able to receive, his right to equal protection had been violated. Defendant claimed that, under these circumstances, his sentences were illegal and, therefore, he should be resentenced to a determinate term so that he would be able to receive commutation time for good behavior and work performed. The trial court denied the motion because (1) defendant had not exhausted his right to appeal from the resentencing panel‘s decision under R. 3:22-3; and (2) the sentences were not violative of defendant‘s constitutionally guaranteed equal protection rights. This appeal followed.
Defendant now seeks an order granting him the right to earn commutation time for good behavior and work performed on the following grounds set forth in his brief:
POINT I N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1d(1) MANDATES THAT DEFENDANT, COMMITTED TO THE ADULT DIAGNOSTIC AND TREATMENT CENTER FOR AN INDETERMINATE THIRTY YEAR TERM, BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY
TO EARN COMMUTATION CREDITS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR AND WORK PERFORMED.
POINT II THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE DEFENDANT WITH THE SAME RIGHT TO EARN COMMUTATION CREDITS AS HAS BEEN CONFERRED, SINCE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CODE, ON THOSE INMATES SERVING SIMILAR SENTENCES FOR SIMILAR CRIMES DEPRIVES HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW UNDER THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
POINT III DEFENDANT WHO SEEKS TO CHALLENGE THE DENIAL OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO EARN COMMUTATION CREDITS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR AND WORK PERFORMED PROPERLY SOUGHT A REMEDY BY WAY OF MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION RELIEF.
We have carefully considered these contentions and all of the arguments advanced by defendant in support of them and find that they are clearly without merit.1 R. 2:11-3(e)(2). However, some further comment is necessary with respect to the arguments raised by defendant in Points I and II.
I.
In April 1978, defendant was sentenced to a 30 year indeterminate term at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center at Avenel, pursuant to
No statute relating to remission of sentence by way of commutation time for good behavior and for work performed shall apply to any such person committed pursuant to section 2A:164-6 of this title, but provision may be made for monetary compensation in [an] amount to be prescribed by the state board of control of institutions and agencies, in lieu of remission of sentence for work performed. [Emphasis supplied].
In August 1978, the Legislature enacted a comprehensive revision of the criminal laws of this State, known as the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (Code),
The enactment of the Code further effected a major change by providing that sex offenders were to be sentenced to a specific term of years, rather than to an indeterminate term.
In the event that the court shall sentence a person as provided herein, the court shall notwithstanding set the sentence in accordance with Chapters 43 and 44 of this code.
Consequently, pursuant to Title 2C, a sex offender is now sentenced to a determinate term, just as inmates incarcerated in State prisons would be. Cf.
Generally, offenses committed and penalties incurred prior to the repeal of a legislative act are not affected by such repeal, ”unless it is expressly declared in the act by which
The provisions of the code governing the treatment and the release or discharge of prisoners . . . shall apply to persons under sentence for offenses committed prior to the effective date of the code, except that the minimum or maximum period of their detention or supervision shall in no case be increased. [
N.J.S.A. 2C:1-1d(1) (Emphasis supplied)].
Defendant argues that denying him the opportunity to earn commutation credits for good behavior and work performed is one aspect of his overall “treatment” as a prisoner and, therefore,
Under the now repealed Sex Offender Act, the primary purpose of sentencing was rehabilitative. Defendants were to be released upon their completion of a successful course of treatment,
In contrast,
In Savad v. Department of Corrections, supra, we considered whether defendants sentenced under the repealed Sex Offender Act,
Progress through treatment and therapy to an acceptable social adjustment was the legislative goal of the repealed Sex Offender Act. Upon satisfactory rehabilitation from their aberrations pre-Code sex offenders . . . were immediately eligible for parole. At the other extreme, their maximums were those fixed by law for the crimes of which they were convicted. [Ibid. (Emphasis supplied)].
We concluded in Savad that, where an individual continues to serve a commitment imposed under the Sex Offender Act, his sentence should not be modified by the granting of eligibility for commutation credits. Id. at 391. Accord Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 11-1980, 106 N.J.L.J. 118 (1980). Writing for the court in Savad, Judge Furman emphasized that “[t]he enactment and taking effect of the Code did not, in itself, reduce or otherwise affect pre-Code sentences,” 178 N.J. Super. at 391, although pre-Code sentences may be reduced upon a showing of disparity and good cause.
Furthermore, at the time of the imposition of defendant‘s sentence, there existed an express prohibition on the award of commutation credits to sex offenders within the now appealed
The granting or forfeiture of commutation credits . .. requires the exercise of judgment by the State Prison authorities based upon their observation and evaluation of the prisoner‘s conduct.... [Id. at 460].
Therefore, it would not be consistent with the clear legislative intent for this court to allow the award of commutation credits “for a period of time during which state prison officials were not authorized to credit inmates with time for good behavior.” Attorney General Formal Opinion No. 11-1980, 106 N.J.L.J. 118, 139 (1980).
Even if we were to accept defendant‘s argument that denying a prisoner the opportunity to earn commutation credits for good behavior and work performed is an aspect of prisoner “treatment“, a careful reading of
Provisions governing the granting of such credits are contained within
Accordingly,
II.
We are also satisfied that the trial court properly concluded that defendant has not been denied equal protection of the law because he is being treated differently than sex offenders who have been committed to Avenel under the Code.
The
The United States Supreme Court has taken the following position with respect to constitutional challenges to statutory mandates:
State laws are generally entitled to a presumption of validity against attack under the Equal Protection Clause. (Citation omitted). Legislatures have wide discretion in passing laws that have the inevitable effect of treating some people differently from others, and legislative classifications are valid unless they bear no rational relationship to a permissible state objective. (Citations omitted).
Not all legislation, however, is entitled to the same presumption of validity. The presumption is not present when a State has enacted legislation whose purpose or effect is to create classes based upon racial criteria, since racial classifications, in a constitutional sense, are inherently “suspect.” (Citations omitted). And the presumption of statutory validity may also be undermined
when a State has enacted legislation creating classes based upon certain other immutable human attributes. (Citations omitted).
In the absence of invidious discrimination, however, a court is not free under the aegis of the Equal Protection Clause to substitute its judgment for the will of the people of a State as expressed in the laws passed by their popularly elected legislatures. [Parham v. Hughes, 441 U.S. 347, 351, 99 S.Ct. 1742, 1745, 60 L.Ed.2d 269, 274 (1979) (Emphasis supplied)].
In addition, to decide whether a law is violative of equal protection rights, the following factors must be considered:
the character of the classification in question; the individual interests affected by the classification; and the governmental interests asserted in support of the classification. [Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 335, 92 S.Ct. 995, 999, 31 L.Ed.2d 274, 280 (1972)].
Constitutional principles of equal protection do not mandate that all persons be treated identically. They require only that differences in treatment be justified by an appropriate state interest. State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236, 253 (1975); Trantino v. Department of Corrections, 168 N.J. Super. 220, 227 (App. Div. 1979), certif. den., 81 N.J. 338 (1979); Torres v. Wagner, supra, 121 N.J. Super. at 459. Under a two-tiered analysis of equal protection, the State need only show a rational basis for a disparity in treatment, see, e.g., Mahoney v. Parole Board of New Jersey, 10 N.J. 269, 278 (1952), appeal dism., 344 U.S. 871, 73 S.Ct. 173, 97 L.Ed. 675 (1952), unless it involves invidious discrimination or impinges upon fundamental rights. In such cases, a compelling state interest must be shown. State v. Krol, supra, 68 N.J. at 253. See also Hluchan v. Fauver, supra, 480 F. Supp. at 109 (Although prison inmates are entitled to equal protection of the law, their treatment is not subject to strict judicial scrutiny in the absence of impingement on fundamental rights or imposition of a suspect classification).
In State v. Wingler, 25 N.J. 161 (1957) the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Act,
In Trantino v. Department of Corrections, supra, 168 N.J. Super. at 226, we held that the denial of work credits towards parole eligibility for time spent on death row by prisoners whose capital sentences were commuted to life imprisonment did not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. In reaching this decision we found “no merit in the claim that this work credit policy `created an arbitrary distinction which is not founded upon a substantial state interest between prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment on a particular day and prisoners whose death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment as of that same day.‘” Id. at 226-227.
In State v. Smith, 190 N.J. Super. 21, 23-24 (App.Div. 1982), certif. den., 96 N.J. 319 (1984) we further held that a defendant did not have a constitutional right to be resentenced because of the disparity which existed between the 30 year sentence, which he was serving for rape under the Sex Offender Act, and the 20 year maximum under the Code, for the congruent offense of aggravated sexual assault, to which others were committed. Accordingly, we have clearly recognized that “differing treatment of prior offenders does not generate any inference of constitutional deprivation.” 190 N.J. Super. at 24.
In Frazier v. Manson, 703 F.2d 30 (2d Cir.1983), cert. den., 464 U.S. 934, 104 S.Ct. 339, 78 L.Ed.2d 308 (1983), a federal court considered whether a Connecticut statute which increased the good time credit per year for inmates sentenced on or after October 1, 1976, discriminated against prisoners sentenced prior to that date, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Appellants in Frazier argued that, since good time credits affected the length of incarceration, they impinged upon a protected liberty interest and, therefore, should be analyzed under a strict scrutiny standard which would require a compelling state interest to sustain them. Id. at 33-34. The Circuit Court disagreed, relying on McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973) (constitutionality of bestowing good time credits on some prisoners, but not on others, required only some rational basis). Although the awarding of good time credits may affect the length of incarceration, thereby implicating a protected liberty interest, the Frazier Court found that the State‘s equally important interests, may militate against a compelling necessity test. 703 F.2d at 34. But cf. Bolling v. Manson, 345 F. Supp. 48 (D.Conn. 1972) (District Court failed to find that there was compelling state interest for disparity in treatment with respect to good time credits awarded to reformatory inmates serving definite as distinguished from indefinite sentences and, therefore, concluded that statute was unconstitutional).
Here, we are satisfied that defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing that similarly situated individuals are being treated dissimilarly. He is not a member of the same class, nor is he similarly situated to persons serving determinate sentences under the Code. Defendant continues to serve an indeterminate term, pursuant to the provisions of the now repealed Sex Offender Act,
Finally, even if we were to make the assumption that defendant has made a threshold showing that there is disparate treatment among members of the same class, we have no hesitancy in concluding that it was reasonable for the Legislature to refuse to award such commutation credits to defendant, since such credits could be used to initiate release before satisfactory rehabilitation and social adjustment has been made. The granting of good time and work credits would undoubtedly undercut the legislative goals of rehabilitation and treatment underlying the Sex Offender Act. In our view, the bar against commutation time for good behavior and work performed is an integral part of defendant‘s indeterminate sentence under Title 2A. See Savad v. Department of Corrections, supra, 178 N.J. Super. at 390. Thus, there is a rational basis to distinguish him from sex offenders committed to determinate sentences under the Code.
Affirmed.