Title: State v. Jason G. Meyer

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

A court-ordered clinical evaluation of 25-year-old Meyer detailed a dissipated life of drug dependency and crimes committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. His daily drug abuse began with using marijuana at the age of eight, alcohol at age nine, hallucinogenic drugs at age twelve, amphetamines at age fifteen, and heroin and cocaine at age seventeen. He has overdosed three times, attempted suicide, spent one-fifth of his life behind bars, and has been treated for his drug abuse. The evaluator recommended that Meyer complete a long term residential treatment program. The trial court reviewed that report and admitted Meyer into Drug Court. The court relied on the Drug Court Manual, which does not limit admission solely to offenders that meet the criteria under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. The court observed that while N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 provides an alternative to prison -- special probation -- for offenders subject to the presumption of incarceration and certain mandatory-minimum sentences, the Manual also allows for sentencing of substance-abusing, non-violent offenders under the general sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice. Meyer pled guilty to the crimes charged in the indictment. The State accepted the plea subject to preserving its right to challenge the order admitting Meyer into Drug Court over the State s objection. Meyer was sentenced to a five-year probationary term in Drug Court, requiring him to follow the specific treatment plan determined by the in-patient facility and Drug Court Team. In the meantime, the Appellate Division denied the State s motion for leave to appeal the order placing Meyer in Drug Court. The Supreme Court granted the State leave to appeal and, after Meyer was sentenced, granted Meyer s motion to directly certify the State s then-pending appeal of his sentence and to consolidate it with the appeal of his admission into Drug Court. 188 N.J. 345 (2006). HELD: Special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 is a type of disposition for certain non-violent drug offenders, but it is not the exclusive route to admission into Drug Court. Consistent with the Drug Court Manual and the general sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice, N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1, a trial court has discretion to admit non-violent drug-dependent offenders into Drug Court. 1. The State argues that Meyer cannot be admitted into Drug Court because he is not eligible for special probation. The State concedes, however, that the trial court had discretion to sentence Meyer to a probationary term and that the court had the authority to order Meyer into a drug rehabilitation program and to subject him to intensive drug monitoring as conditions of probation. Thus, the State does not object to the result but to the court where the case is resolved. The basic objective of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 is to allow deserving prison-bound addicted offenders the opportunity for special probation to recover from their addiction and their cycle of involvement with crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 does not suggest that addicted offenders whose crimes do not mandate imprisonment and who are eligible for probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1 should not have access to the same resources to spur their rehabilitation as those who face incarceration. (pp. 8-9) 2. The New Jersey Judiciary created Drug Courts within the criminal part of the Superior Court, Law Division, to address the unique problems and needs posed by non-violent, drug-dependent offenders who, through intensive supervision and treatment, have the high potential for recovery and building a productive life. Drug Courts have proven successful in maximizing the rehabilitative prospects of addicted offenders, reducing the cycle of recidivism, and yielding cost-savings to New Jersey s overburdened criminal justice system. (pp. 9-11) 3. Under the New Jersey Constitution, the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to administer the courts of this State and to divide the Law Division into parts. Drug Courts are a subpart of the criminal part of the Law Division. (p. 12) 4. Drug Courts became operational on an experimental basis in the mid-1990s, focusing judicial resources to deal with drug-dependent offenders who were overburdening the criminal justice system. In 2001, the Legislature appropriated funding to the AOC for the operation of Drug Courts, which the AOC had begun implementing on a statewide basis. In 2002, the AOC promulgated the Drug Court Manual, which is intended to provide uniform eligibility criteria for the program. (pp. 12-13) 5. The Manual provides two paths for admission into Drug Court. Offenders must either (1) meet the eligibility requirements for special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, or (2) be eligible under the general sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice. The Manual explains that under the second track, a nonviolent offender may be eligible for Drug Court sentencing if (a) the offender has a drug or alcohol dependence and is likely to benefit from treatment; (b) the offender has not been previously convicted of and does not have a pending charge of murder, kidnapping, or other violent crime; (c) the offender has no history of possession of a firearm during an offense; and (d) no danger to the community is likely to result from the offender being placed on probation. (pp. 14-15) 6. Under the second track for admission into Drug Court, the length of drug court supervision is left to the judge s discretion. The structure of the treatment program is based on the needs of the offender as determined by an assessment. Under the general sentencing provisions of the Code, a sentencing court is authorized to impose reasonable conditions of probation, such as undergoing medical treatment and other conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation. (pp. 16-17) 7. Meyer is eligible for Drug Court under the criteria of the second track described in the Drug Court Manual. He is drug dependant and not charged with a disqualifying crime. He did not possess a firearm during any offense. The trial court found that a probationary term would not likely endanger the community. (p. 17) 8. The Legislature s purpose in enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 was not to establish a stand-alone court to handle drug cases. That statute crafted a new disposition alternative that allowed a court to divert certain drug-dependent, prison-bound defendants into an intensively monitored, long-term program of rehabilitation. Nothing in the statutory language or history of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 suggests that the Legislature presumed to create its own specialized court. Likewise, in establishing Drug Courts, the judiciary has not presumed to conceive a sentencing disposition not already found in the Code of Criminal Justice. Drug Courts and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 are entirely compatible with each other. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to set forth the criteria for admission into Drug Court. (pp. 17-19) 9. The Court disapproves of State v. Matthews, 378 N.J. Super. 396 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 185 N.J. 596 (2005), to the extent it conflicts with the Drug Court Manual and this opinion by suggesting that a defendant theoretically could be sentenced to probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1 -- just not with a condition that imposed drug treatment. (pp. 19-22) The trial court s sentence is AFFIRMED and the matter is REMANDED to that court for proceedings consistent with the Court s opinion. JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA , WALLACE , RIVERA-SOTO , and HOENS join in JUSTICE ALBIN s opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 121 September Term 2005 A- 43 September Term 2006 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JASON G. MEYER, Defendant-Respondent. Argued March 20, 2007 Decided September 19, 2007 On appeal from and certification to the Superior Court, Law Division, Warren County. Samuel J. Marzarella, Assistant Ocean County Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Thomas F. Furguson, Warren County Prosecutor and Thomas F. Kelaher, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorneys). Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Ms. Segars, attorney; Stephen P. Hunter, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Sharon Bittner Kean submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey. Craig R. Levine, Senior Counsel, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Institute for Social Justice (Mr. Levine and Lowenstein Sandler, attorneys; Mr. Levine, John W. Bartlett and Jody T. Walker, on the brief). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. The New Jersey Judiciary created Drug Courts within the criminal part of the Superior Court, Law Division to address the unique problems and needs posed by non-violent, drug-dependent offenders who, through intensive supervision and treatment, have the high potential for recovery and building a productive life. Drug Courts have proven successful in maximizing the rehabilitative prospects of addicted offenders, reducing the cycle of recidivism, and yielding cost-savings to our overburdened criminal justice system. In this appeal, the State challenges the admission of defendant Jason G. Meyer into Drug Court. The State contends that only those defendants eligible for special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 may be admitted into a drug court program. Given defendant s several prior convictions for third-degree crimes, defendant does not meet N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 s eligibility requirements for special probation, and therefore, the State argues, Drug Court is not an available option. Defendant counters that the admission criteria for Drug Court is governed by the Administrative Office of the Courts Drug Court Manual. Under the Manual s guidelines, defendant is permitted enrollment in Drug Court. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 merely sets forth a disposition -- special probation for certain non-violent drug offenders -- and does not exclusively determine who is eligible for enrollment in Drug Court. Although that statute and Drug Courts serve complementary purposes, the New Jersey Supreme Court through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) has the ultimate constitutional authority to administer our court system, including the drug court program. We therefore affirm the trial court s decision to admit defendant into Drug Court based on the criteria set forth in the AOC s Drug Court Manual. the person has not been previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent for, and does not have a pending charge of murder, aggravated manslaughter, manslaughter, robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault, or a similar crime under the laws of any other state or the United States; and the person did not possess a firearm at the time of the present offense and has no history of possession of a firearm during an offense; and no danger to the community is likely to result from the person being placed on probation. [Ibid.] Although first-degree offenders are ineligible for Drug Court under either track one or two, under the second track, even second-degree offenders are disqualified. Id. at 12, 17. Unlike sentencing under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, the second track follows the Code s general sentencing provisions and allows the court to impose a probationary term not to exceed five years in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:45-2. See footnote 5 See id. at 17. The length of drug court supervision is left to the discretion of the drug court judge and unlike cases sentenced under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 early termination of probation supervision is an option that the drug court team may consider. Id. at 18. The Manual provides that under this approach [t]he exact structure of the treatment [whether in-patient or out-patient] is based on the need of the offender as determined by a diagnostic assessment. Id. at 17. It bears mentioning that a sentencing court is statutorily authorized to impose reasonable conditions of probation in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1a. The court s options under a probationary sentence include ordering an offender [t]o undergo available medical or psychiatric treatment and to enter and remain in a specified institution, when required for that purpose and setting any other conditions reasonably related to the [offender s] rehabilitation. N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1b(3), (12). See State v. Cullen, 351 N.J. Super. 505, 508 (App. Div. 2002) (noting that conditions of probation may include random urine screens, enrollment in substance abuse program, and attendance at weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings). In light of the track two criteria, defendant is eligible for Drug Court. He is drug dependent and not charged with a disqualifying crime; he did not possess a firearm in commission of the current or any previous offenses; and the trial court found that a probationary term would not likely endanger the community. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-121-05/A-43-06 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005-06 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JASON G. MEYER, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED September 19, 2007 Justice Long PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Albin CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY