Title: State v. Sherron Rolex

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

PER CURIAM Sherron Rolex was charged in two Camden County accusations with possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of school property with intent to distribute. Rolex pled guilty to the charges pursuant to a plea bargain in which the Prosecutor agreed to recommend that Rolex be admitted to a pilot drug treatment program or, if not accepted into the program, that he be sentenced to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment with an eighteen-month parole ineligibility provision. The plea agreement also provided that if Rolex failed to appear for sentencing or any other mandated court appearance before sentencing (or was charged with a new offense), his guilty plea would stand and the Prosecutor would be free to recommend any lawful sentence. Rolex failed to appear either for a mandated drug court appearance on October 6, 1997, or for sentencing on November 18, 1997. When the rescheduled sentencing occurred on January 13, 1998, the Prosecutor took the position that Rolex had violated the plea agreement. The trial court sentenced Rolex to concurrent four-year terms with three years of parole ineligibility. Rolex appealed to the Appellate Division, challenging his sentence. That court, in a published opinion ( 329 N.J. 220 (2000)), traced the history of Court decisions on the application of a prosecutor's statutory ability to waive the mandatory period of parole ineligibility otherwise required by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. It concluded that there was merit to Rolex's challenge to a directive of the Attorney General in respect of "no appearance/no waiver" pleas. It further concluded that the Attorney General should be afforded an opportunity to participate in this appeal. In addition, the parties, including the Attorney General, should address the question whether it is feasible to devise more specific guidelines than are set forth in Directive No.1 to identify those cases in which it is appropriate to include a no appearance/no waiver provision in a plea offer. The parties were also directed to consider whether, assuming no appearance/no waiver agreements were still valid after the Court's decision in State v. Brimage, there is a need to have the statewide guidelines provide that under some circumstances, a defendant's failure to appear may result in a period of parole ineligibility that is longer than the period provided in the plea agreement but shorter than the full three years under the statute. After the Appellate Division remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, the Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certification. The Attorney General participated in the appeal as amicus curiae. HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division remanding the matter to address post-State v. Brimage questions raised in respect of no appearance/no waiver plea agreements is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed by that court in its published opinion. 1. The Supreme Court shares the concerns of the Appellate Division. It notes that the Attorney General reported only four counties currently use a no appearance/no waiver agreement mechanism. In those counties, the mechanism is viewed as a benefit to poor defendants who cannot make bail. (p. 3) The judgment of the Appellate Division is Affirmed. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in the Court's opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERRON ROLEX, Defendant-Respondent. Argued May 1, 2001 -- Decided May 30, 2001 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 329 N.J. Super. 220 (2000). Jack L. Weinberg, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Lee A. Solomon, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney). Alison S. Perrone, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Janet Flanagan, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). PER CURIAM In this case, the Appellate Division was presented with the issue of the impact of State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1 (1998), on a no appearance/no waiver plea agreement. That is a question complicated by the rather broadly-drawn Brimage guidelines that give an individual county prosecutor wide discretion to determine the circumstances under which to include a no appearance/no waiver provision in a plea offer, which appears, at least on an initial review, to be contrary to the holding in Brimage. State v. Rolex, 329 N.J. Super. 220, 226 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 486 (2000). As a result, the Appellate Division remanded the case for supplementation of the record regarding the actual operation of a no appearance/no waiver agreement. Id. at 227. More particularly, the court stated: [T]he parties, including the Attorney General, should address the question whether it is feasible to devise more specific guidelines than are set forth in Directive No. 1 to identify those cases in which it is appropriate to include a no appearance/no waiver provision in a plea offer. The parties also should consider whether, assuming no appearance/no waiver plea agreements remain valid after Brimage, there is a need for statewide guidelines concerning the prosecutor's invocation of the no waiver provision following a defendant's failure to appear, and if so, whether those guidelines should provide that, under some circumstances, a defendant's failure to appear may result in a sentence which includes a period of parole ineligibility that is longer than the period provided in the plea agreement, but shorter than the full three years mandated by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. [Ibid.] NO. A-131 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERRON ROLEX, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED May 30, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz