Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR C. HOPSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1971-03-16
Citations: 114 N.J. Super. 146
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR C. HOPSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 146–152

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ARTHUR C. HOPSON, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 17, 1971
Decided March 16, 1971.
Before Judges Kilkenny, Halpern and Lane.
Mr. Herbert I. Waldman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Stanley O. Van Ness, Public Defender, Attorney; Mr. Gerald T. Foley, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Mr. Joseph A. Fusco, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the' cause for respondent (Mr. Joseph P. Lordi, Essex County Prosecutor, Attorney; Mr. David 8. Baime, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Lane, J. A. D.
Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment for possession of heroin (N. J. S. A. 24:18-4). He was sentenced to the New Jersey Keformatory for Males at Yard-ville for a minimum term of 3 years and fined $25. He appeals contending that the sentence was illegal and excessive.
The initial contention that the sentence was illegal is based upon N. J. S. A. 30 :A-148, which provides that a sentence to the reformatory may not impose a minimum period of detention. This point has been decided adversely to the defendant in State v. Pallitto, 107 N. J. Super. 96 (App. Div. 1969), certif. den. 55 N. J. 309 (1970), and State v. Ammirata, 104 N. J. Super. 304 (App. Div. 1969).
Defendant further argues that at any rate the imposition of a 3 year minimum to the commitment to the reformatory is illegal.
N. J. S. A. 30 :4-148 deals with sentences to the reformatory :
The courts in sentencing to the reformatory shall not fix or limit the duration of sentence, but the time which any such person shall serve in the reformatory or on parole shall not in any case exceed five years or the maximum term provided by law for the crime for which the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, if such maximum be less than five years; provided, however, that the court, in its discretion, for good cause shown, may impose a sentence greater than five years, but in no ease greater than the maximum provided by law, and the commitment shall specify in every case the maximum of the sentence so imposed. The term may be terminated by the board of managers in accordance with its rules and regulations formally adopted.
N. J. S. A. 24:18-47 establishes the punishment for narcotic violations. In part it provides:
Any person as in this chapter defined
(c) Who violates any other provision hereof shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor and shall be punished as follows:
(1) for a first offense, by a fine not exceeding $2,000.00 and by imprisonment with hard labor, for a term of not less than 2 years nor more than 15 years;
This court in State v. Ammirata, supra, discussed the relationship between N. J. S. A. 30 :4-148 and N. J. S. A. 24:18-47(c)(1) :
We find that N. J. S. A. 30:A-148 and N. J. S. A. 24:18-47 do conflict. How can they be reconciled? Three possible constructions may be suggested: (1) narcotics violators may not be sentenced to the reformatory, (2) they may be sentenced to the reformatory for the minimum required by N. J. S. A. 24:18-47(c) (1), as urged by the State, or (3) as defendant argues, they may be sentenced to the reformatory, but in that case no minimum may be fixed. [104 N. J. Super, at 307]
The Court adopted the second of the three possible constructions, stating:
We reject defendant's argument that no minimum may be fixed if the commitment is to the reformatory, for that would ignore the plain direction of N. J. S. A. 24:18-47 to impose a minimum. It must be noted that N. J. S. A. 24:18-47 was amended three times (L. 1952, e. 90; L. 1964, e. 293; L. 1966, c. 313) between the date of the enactment of N. J. S. A. 30:4 — 148 (L. 1951, O. 335) and the date of defendant's offense. That being so, we must obey N. J. S. A. 24:18-47. Therefore, we hold that every commitment whether it be to a reformatory or any other correctional institution, must he for the minimum fixed hy 24:18-47. [Emphasis supplied.] [104 N. J. Super, at 308]
It is accepted as a matter of legislative policy that the control of offenders who may be sentenced to a reformatory under N. J. S. A. 30 :4-147 lies "in correction and rehabilitation, rather than retribution." State v. Horton, 45 N. J. Super. 44, 46 (App. Div. 1957). The theory behind N. J. S. A. 30:4-148 is to allow discretion to the Board of Managers to terminate a sentence if the offender responds favorably to social rehabilitation. State v. Horton, supra, at 46-47. Such an enlightened program is seriously interfered with when minimum sentences can be fixed at the discretion of the Court. In sentencing under N. J. S. A. 24:18-47(c) (1) a minimum sentence of 2 years is required, not because of the discretion of the Court, but rather because of the legislative mandate. We do not read N. J. S. A. 24:18-47(c) (1) to allow any more interference with the social philosophy behind reformatory confinement than absolutely required.
The sentencing Court had no discretion in the matter. In sentencing the defendant to the reformatory, it was required to impose a 2 year minimum. The minimum can be neither more nor less than the 2 years mandated by the legislature.
The sentence, therefore, was illegal because of the 3 year minimum imposed. We will exercise our original jurisdic tion and sentence the defendant to the Youth Reception and Correction Center, Yardville, for a minimum of 3 years and impose a fine of $35.
Defendant further argues that the sentence, even though it may be reduced to a 3 year minimum as we have done, would be excessive. We have carefully considered the presentence report. We are firmly of the opinion that the sentence which we have imposed is reasonable, particularly in view of the well recognized horrendous effect that heroin has upon an individual and upon our society.
The judgment of conviction is modified to provide that defendant be sentenced to the Youth Reception and Correction Center, Yardville, for a minimum of 3 years and fined $35.