Case Title: State v. Donna L. Carreker

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-95-00

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
On April 6, 1998, Donna L. Carreker sold what appeared to be cocaine to an undercover police officer in Somerville. Actually, the substance was flour. Carreker s presentence report, however, lists fugitive as one of her offenses, suggesting that she fled the jurisdiction following the Somerville encounter. On June 25, 1998, New York authorities sentenced Carreker to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of one-to-three years for third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance stemming from a December 1997 arrest in that State. While Carreker was incarcerated in New York, officials in New Jersey lodged a detainer against her on or about October 23, 1998, pursuant to an arrest warrant arising out of the Somerville incident. Carreker filed a request under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to 15 (IAD), to resolve the New Jersey charges. In January 1999, Carreker was indicted in Somerset County for third-degree distribution of an imitation controlled dangerous substance. She was extradited from New York to the Somerset County jail, and reached a plea agreement with the State under which she would serve a four-year term to run concurrent with her New York sentence. Carreker requested gap-time credit for the time served on her New York sentence. The trial court denied the request. In an unpublished decision, the Appellate Division affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Carreker s petition for certification. HELD: There is no entitlement to gap-time credit for time served on an out-of-state sentence. 1. Generally, gap-time credit applies when: (1) a defendant has been sentenced previously to a term of imprisonment, (2) he or she is sentenced subsequently to another term, and (3) both offenses occurred prior to the imposition of the first sentence. If those elements are established, the defendant must be awarded credit for the time served on the prior sentence when the permissible aggregate length of the term or terms is determined. New Jersey courts have surmised that the statute s purpose is to avoid the manipulation of trial dates to the disadvantage of defendants and to put defendants in the same position that they would have been had the two offenses been tried at the same time. The statute was intended to counteract any dilatory tactics of prosecutors in pursuing a conviction for another offense. The statute is derived largely from section 7.06(2)(b) of the Model Penal Code (MPC). The MPC s earlier 1954 draft of the section had limited its scope to sentences imposed solely within an individual sentencing state. The drafters ultimately deleted the in-state limitation in their final 1961 proposal, which was enacted in New Jersey in 1978. (Pp. 4-5) 2. There is a conflict of authority within the Superior Court, Appellate Division on whether the statute requires gap-time credit for time served on an out-of-state sentence. In State v. Hugley, 198 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 1985), the Appellate Division held that defendant was not entitled to credit for the time served on his Florida sentence. The Hugley court explained that because the defendant escaped from New Jersey to Florida, the prosecutor was unable to proceed on the indictment, eliminating the possibility of unjust delay on the part of the State. In State v. Dela Rosa, 327 N.J. Super. 295 (App. Div.), certif.. denied, 164 N.J. 191 (2000), another panel of the Appellate Division concluded that because the Legislature had not included the in-state language contained in the earlier 1954 version of the MPC, it intended both in-state and out-of-state sentences to be eligible for gap-time credit. Finally, in State v. McIntosh, 346 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2001), a panel of the Appellate Division held that gap-time credit does not apply to a defendant s time served in an out-of-state jail, but that it does apply to that portion of the out-of-state sentence served in a New Jersey facility. (Pp. 5-13) 3. The language of the gap-time statute is directed at New Jersey sentencing authorities, instructing them to award credit for the time served in imprisonment on the prior sentence in determining the permissible aggregate length of the term or terms remaining to be served. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division s conclusion that the term aggregate, within the framework of the statute, cannot encompass an out-of-state term, as New Jersey prison authorities have no jurisdiction to aggregate out-of-state sentences. Also, the Legislature did address in the Code, when relevant, the relationship of out-of-state convictions to in-state convictions, and when it intended to cover out-of-state convictions, it specifically did so. The Legislature did not express a specific intention to include out-of-state sentences in the gap-time calculation. Nor does the history of the MPC s gap-time provision, including the MPC s unapproved version seeking to limit its scope to in-state sentences, demonstrate that the Legislature intended the statute to apply to out-of-state sentences. The Court is unwilling to surmise that the Legislature in 1978 contemplated an in-state limitation on gap-time and then rejected it, merely because the MPC s drafters considered that limitation among themselves some twenty years earlier. (Pp. 13-17) 4. The Court s disposition is consistent with the purpose of the gap-time provision to mitigate possible manipulation of sentences by prosecutors who might delay an indictment when an inmate is available for disposition on a New Jersey offense. In the case of a defendant like Carreker who has fled the jurisdiction and is serving time in a foreign facility, the risk of manipulation is greatly reduced, if not vitiated, by that defendant s absence. More importantly, defendants who are serving out-of-state sentences are given adequate protections against prosecutorial delay under the relevant provisions of the IAD. Once a detainer is filed, the IAD provides that out-of-state defendants can request to have their untried indictments resolved within 180 days. (Pp. 17-22) Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. To the extent that the Appellate Division decisions in Dela Rosa and McIntosh are inconsistent with this holding, they are overruled. CHIEF USTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE VERNIERO s opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONNA L. CARREKER, a/k/a LISA GOOD, Defendant-Appellant. Argued January 14, 2002 Decided May 14, 2002 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. J. Michael Blake, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Robert E. Bonpietro, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by VERNIERO, J. This appeal involves the gap-time credit provision found at N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5b(2). Generally, that provision becomes relevant when a defendant, who has been sentenced previously to a term of imprisonment, is sentenced again for a different offense committed prior to the imposition of the earlier sentence. In that circumstance, the defendant shall be credited at the time of the second sentence for so much of the term of imprisonment as has been served on the prior sentence. Richardson v. Nickolopoulos, 110 N.J. 241, 242 (1988). The narrow question before us is whether the statute entitles defendant to gap-time credit for time served on her out-of-state sentence. The Appellate Division concluded that the answer to that question is no. We agree and affirm. [(Alterations in the original).] The court below also agreed with the rationale stated in Hugley. In so doing, the court emphasized that the present case did not involve prosecutorial foot dragging because defendant had fled New Jersey following the Somerville incident. The court concluded that, under those circumstances, [t]he reason for gap-time credit [] does not exist here. A recent Appellate Division panel has charted a somewhat different course. In State v. McIntosh, the defendant sought gap-time credit for time served on a Pennsylvania sentence. 346 N.J. Super. 1, 3 (App. Div. 2001). The court held that such credit does not apply to a defendant s time served in an out-of-state jail, but that the credit does apply to that portion of the out-of-state sentence that is served in a New Jersey facility. Id. at 4-5. In so holding, the court in essence agreed with portions of both Dela Rosa and Hugley. In respect of the portion of the defendant s sentence served in New Jersey the court echoed Dela Rosa s holding, explaining that [o]nce defendant arrived in New Jersey, he assumed the same status as any defendant awaiting disposition of the charge and, therefore, was entitled to the same benefits and protections. Ibid. Yet, in respect of the portion of the sentence served in a foreign facility, the McIntosh court mirrored Hugley s reasoning, noting that the safeguards provided under the IAD adequately protect defendants against dilatory tactics by the prosecution. Id. at 5-6. In sum, two decisions of the Appellate Division, Hugley and the decision below, have held that gap-time credit is not available for any aspect of an out-of-state sentence; one decision, Dela Rosa, has held that gap-time credit is available for that portion of the out-of-state sentence being served while a defendant is in New Jersey; and one decision, McIntosh, has held that gap-time credit is not available for that portion of an out-of-state sentence served in the foreign facility, but is available for that portion of the sentence that is served in New Jersey. NO. A-95 SEPTEMBER TERM 2000 ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DONNA L. CARREKER, a/k/a LISA GOOD, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED May 14, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Verniero CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY