Title: New Jersey v. Hester

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)

      State v. Melvin Hester/Mark Warner/Anthony McKinney/Linwood Roundtree (A-91-16) (079228)

Argued November 28, 2017 -- Decided May 30, 2018

ALBIN, J., writing for the Court.

         Under the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act, L. 1994, c. 130, §§ 1 and 2, a defendant convicted of certain
sex offenses pursuant to 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 is required to serve a special sentence of community supervision for life
(CSL). The Court considers the constitutionality of the retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to 
N.J.S.A.
2C:43-6.4 (2014 Amendment), L. 2013, c. 214, § 4 (effective July 1, 2014), which increased the punishment for the
CSL violations committed by the four defendants in this case.

         Defendants Melvin Hester, Mark Warner, Anthony McKinney, and Linwood Roundtree were convicted of
sex offenses and sentenced to serve special sentences of CSL after completion of the custodial portions of their
sentences. At the time of defendants’ sentencing proceedings, under the 1994 version of 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, a trial
court was required to impose “a special sentence of community supervision for life” on any defendant who
committed an enumerated sex offense. As part of their CSL obligations, defendants were required to abide by more
than twenty general conditions governing the terms of their supervised release. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b). At the
time defendants’ sentences were imposed, a violation of any of the terms of the general conditions of CSL
constituted a fourth-degree crime punishable by no more than eighteen months in prison.

          In 2003, the Legislature amended 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, replacing community supervision for life with parole
supervision for life (PSL). L. 2003, c. 267, § 1 (2003 Amendment). The 2003 Amendment provided that an
offender sentenced to PSL would be in the legal custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and
under the supervision of the State Parole Board for life and that a PSL violation could be prosecuted as a fourth-
degree offense, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d), or treated as a parole violation, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(b). In contrast, under
CSL, in the event of a violation of a term of supervised release, the Parole Board’s only option is referral to the
appropriate prosecuting authority, which then decides whether to present the case to a grand jury. The Parole Board
has no power to return a defendant on CSL to prison through the parole-revocation process. One other noteworthy
distinction between CSL and PSL is that a defendant on CSL who commits an enumerated offense is subject to a
mandatory extended term, but is eligible for parole, whereas a defendant on PSL who commits the same offense is
subject to a mandatory extended term, but must serve the entirety of his sentence and then resume his PSL status.

         In 2014, the Legislature again amended 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. L. 2013, c. 214, § 4. That Amendment
provides that a defendant on CSL who violates the terms of his supervised release may be prosecuted for committing
a third-degree crime and faces a presumption of imprisonment. 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d). Under the 2014
Amendment, a conviction for a CSL violation also converts a defendant’s CSL status to PSL status. 
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
6.4(a).

         Based on the 2014 Amendment, a grand jury returned indictments charging defendants with violating the
general conditions of their CSL. The trial judges presiding over defendants’ cases found that the 2014 Amendment
constituted an ex post facto law, as applied to defendants who were on community supervision for life at the time of
the alleged violations, that violated the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. The Appellate Division
affirmed. 
449 N.J. Super. 314, 318 (App. Div. 2017). The Court granted certification. 233 N.J. ___ (2017).

HELD: The Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses bar the retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to
defendants’ CSL violations. The 2014 Amendment retroactively increased the punishment for defendants’ earlier
committed sex offenses by enhancing the penalties for violations of the terms of their supervised release. The
Amendment, therefore, is an ex post facto law that violates the Federal and State Constitutions as applied to defendants.
The Court affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing defendants’ indictments.
                                                          1
1. The United States and New Jersey Constitutions prohibit the State from passing an “ex post facto Law.” U.S.
Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1; N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 3. An ex post facto law is defined by two critical elements. First,
the law must apply to events occurring before its enactment; and second, it must disadvantage the offender affected
by it. A retroactive law that merely effects a procedural change to a statutory scheme will fall outside of the
constitutional prohibition. In contrast, a law that retroactively imposes additional punishment to an already
completed crime disadvantages a defendant, and therefore is a prohibited ex post facto law. (pp. 12-14)

2. Parole and probation are punishments imposed for the commission of a crime. Community supervision for life
and its corollary parole supervision for life are merely indefinite forms of parole and are also classified as
punishment. A statute that retroactively imposes increased postrevocation penalties on a scheme of supervised
release relates to the original offense. Greenfield v. Scafati,