SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO S

. A

- 0200

- 18T4

A

- 1220

- 18T 4 A

- 1681

- 18T 4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

RON Y CHERY,

Defendant,

and

INTERNATIONAL FIDELIT Y INSURANCE CO.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

___________________________ _
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

JERRY TYRE,

Defendant, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet

, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36

- 3.2 A

- 0200

- 18T4

and

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

OMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant,

and

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted September 17, 2019

– Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Accurso and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment Nos. 130019 84

- 001, 16

- 05

- 0719 and 16

- 08

- 1124.

Richard P. Blender, attorney for appellants.

Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys for respondent (Maria P. Vall e jo, of counsel and on the brief). November 20, 20193 A

- 0200

- 18T4

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeal s , sureties that posted bail for the defendants

in these criminal cases

– prior to the 2017 amendments to Rule 3:26

- 6 and the

revised bail remission guidelines ("revised guidelines")

– argue in a single point

that the trial court erred by applying the revised guidelines and " in not applying

the bail forfeiture guidelines . . . in existence at the time the bails were written."

Stated another way, the sureties argue that the revised guidelines should not ha ve

been applied retroactively because "it is patently u nconscionable to allow one

party to the bail

- recognizance contract, the State

- creditor, to alter the most

essential component of the bail contract . . . than was originally agreed upon

when the contract was first entered into." The sureties argue as well that

ap plication of the revised guidelines violates the Contract s Clause of the United

States Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, and that the revised guidelines are

inconsistent with their stated purpose of "simplify[ing] and streamlin[ing] the

process for handling applications to set aside or remit bail forfeiture."

We recently rejected these and other similar challenges to the revised

guidelines in ABC Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Grant , 459 N.J. Super. 340 , 348 (App.

Div.), certif. denied

, __ N.J. __ ( Nov. 4, 2019) , where we held that the revised

guidelines should be applied "retro actively" because they are "procedural, not4 A

- 0200

- 18T4

substantive[,]" "not unconstitutional [,]" "not an unlawful exercise of the Court's

supervisory authority," and do "not constitute a material change to existing

contracts." For the se same reasons, we conclude that the sureties' arguments are

without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a nother written opinion.

R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).

The orders under review in these appeal s are a ffirmed.