Title: New Jersey v. Hester
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: May 30, 2018

New Jersey v. Hester Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary As a result of their sex-offense convictions, all four defendants were required to serve a special sentence of community supervision for life ("CSL") after completion of their prison terms. The commission of their offenses, the judgments of their convictions, and the commencement of their sentences all preceded passage of the 2014 Amendment to the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act. Before the 2014 Amendment, a violation of the terms of CSL was punishable as a fourth-degree crime. The 2014 Amendment increased a CSL violation to a third-degree crime punishable by a presumptive term of imprisonment, and such a violation converted CSL to parole supervision for life (PSL). After enactment of the 2014 Amendment, all four defendants allegedly violated the terms of their CSL. They were indicted for committing third-degree offenses and faced the increased penalties provided by that Amendment. The trial courts presiding over defendants’ cases concluded that the 2014 Amendment’s enhanced penalties, as applied to defendants, violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions and dismissed the indictments. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court held the Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses barred the retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to defendants’ CSL violations. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing defendants’ indictments. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . 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, 2018ALBIN, 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, 277 F. Supp. 644 , 646 (D. Mass. 1967), aff’d, 390 U.S. 713 (1968), forbade on ex post facto grounds the application of a Massachusetts statute imposing sanctions for violation of parole to a prisoner originally sentenced before its enactment. The three-judge federal district court panel rejected the argument that the amended law was not an ex post facto law because Greenfield was on notice of its consequences before he violated parole. Scafati, 277 F. Supp. at 646. The panel held that the statute denying Greenfield good-conduct deductions, enacted after the commission of his offense and imposition of his sentence, materially altered the situation of Greenfield to his disadvantage and therefore constituted prohibited ex post facto legislation. Ibid. In Weaver v. Graham, the Supreme Court cited Scafati for the proposition that an inmate cannot be “disadvantaged by new restrictions on eligibility for release” based on a statute enacted after the commission of the inmate’s crime. 450 U.S. 24 , 34 (1981). (pp. 14-16)3. In keeping with those precedents, the Court has held that a law that retroactively increases the punishment for a CSL violation constitutes an ex post facto law. In State v. Perez, the defendant was serving a special sentence of CSL pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 for crimes committed in 1998 when he was convicted in 2011 of child luring and endangering the welfare of a child. 220 N.J. 423, 428-29 (2015). The 2003 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 “replaced all references to 'community supervision for life’ with 'parole supervision for life.’” Id. at 429. The trial court sentenced defendant to a mandatory extended term without parole eligibility, as though he had violated the terms of PSL, based on the 2 003 Amendment. Id. at 429, 431, 437-38. By contrast, if the pre-amendment version of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 applied, the defendant would have been subject to a mandatory extended term for the new offenses but eligible for parole. Id. at 438. The Court concluded that the 2003 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 “enhances the punitive consequences of the special sentence of CSL to [the defendant’s] detriment and violates the federal and state prohibition of ex post facto legislation.” Id. at 442. (pp. 17-18)4. Here, all four defendants committed sex offenses long before the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. As a result, they were convicted and sentenced to prison terms and a special sentence of CSL. After the 2014 Amendment, the same violation is not only punishable as a third-degree crime, with a presumption of imprisonment, but also converts a defendant’s CSL into PSL. Under PSL, the Parole Board has the authority to simply revoke a defendant’s supervised release for a violation of a general condition and bypass the panoply of procedural rights afforded under the criminal justice system, such as the rights to trial by jury and to have guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The State contends that the 2014 Amendment is a classic recidivist statute that enhances the punishment for subsequent offenses and therefore is not an ex post facto law. However, the 2014 Amendment operates differently than recidivist statutes that have withstood challenge under the Federal and State Ex Post Facto Clauses. The 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 “enhances the punitive consequences of the special sentence of CSL to [the defendant’s] detriment” in the same way that the 2003 Amendment did in Perez. See 220 N.J. at 442. Moreover, the 2014 Amendment retroactively imposes increased postrevocation penalties in the manner condemned by Scafati, 277 F. Supp. at 644 -46, and Weaver, 450 U.S. at 34. (pp. 18-22)5. The retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, which enhanced the punishments for defendants’ violations of the terms of their supervised release under CSL, violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. Independent of the federal constitutional analysis, the 2014 Amendment violates defendants’ rights under the New Jersey Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. (p. 22) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. 2 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 91 September Term 2016 079228STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.MELVIN HESTER, Defendant-Respondent.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.MARK WARNER, Defendant-Respondent.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.ANTHONY MCKINNEY, Defendant-Respondent.STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.LINWOOD ROUNDTREE, Defendant-Respondent. 1 Argued November 28, 2017 – Decided May 30, 2018 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 449 N.J. Super. 314 (App. Div. 2017). Jennifer E. Kmieciak, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Jennifer E. Kmieciak, of counsel and on the briefs). James K. Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent Linwood Roundtree (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; James K. Smith, Jr., of counsel and on the letter brief). Molly O’Donnell Meng, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondents Melvin Hester, Mark Warner, and Anthony McKinney (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Molly O’Donnell Meng, of counsel and on the letter brief). JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the Violent Predator Incapacitation Act, L. 1994, c.130, §§ 1 and 2, a defendant convicted of certain sex offensespursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 is required to serve a specialsentence of community supervision for life (CSL).1 We mustdetermine the constitutionality of the retroactive applicationof the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 (2014 Amendment), L.1 The Violent Predator Incapacitation Act is part of a statutory scheme known as “Megan’s Law.” State v. Perez, 220 N.J. 423, 436-37 (2015). 2 2013, c. 214, § 4 (effective July 1, 2014), which increased thepunishment for the CSL violations committed by the fourdefendants in this case. As a result of their sex-offense convictions, all fourdefendants were required to serve a special sentence ofcommunity supervision for life after completion of their prisonterms. The commission of their offenses, the judgments of theirconvictions, and the commencement of their sentences allpreceded passage of the 2014 Amendment. Before the 2014Amendment, a violation of the terms of CSL was punishable as afourth-degree crime. See L. 1994, c. 130, § 2. The 2014Amendment increased a CSL violation to a third-degree crimepunishable by a presumptive term of imprisonment, and such aviolation converted CSL to parole supervision for life (PSL).See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(a) and (d); see also L. 2013, c. 214,§ 4. Unlike CSL, PSL authorizes the New Jersey Parole Board torevoke an offender’s supervised release for a PSL violation andto return the offender to prison. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(b). After enactment of the 2014 Amendment, all four defendantsallegedly violated the terms of their CSL. They were indictedfor committing third-degree offenses and faced the increasedpenalties provided by that Amendment. The trial courtspresiding over defendants’ cases concluded that the 2014Amendment’s enhanced penalties, as applied to defendants, 3 violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and NewJersey Constitutions and dismissed the indictments. TheAppellate Division affirmed. State v. Hester, 449 N.J. Super. 314, 318 (App. Div. 2017). We now hold that the Federal and State Ex Post FactoClauses bar the retroactive application of the 2014 Amendment todefendants’ CSL violations. A law that retroactively increasesor makes more burdensome the punishment of a crime is an ex postfacto law. Riley v. Parole Bd., 219 N.J. 270, 284-85 (2014).Community supervision for life was a punishment imposed ondefendants at the time they were sentenced. See id. at 288-89.The 2014 Amendment retroactively increased the punishment fordefendants’ earlier committed sex offenses by enhancing thepenalties for violations of the terms of their supervisedrelease. The Amendment, therefore, is an ex post facto law thatviolates our Federal and State Constitutions as applied todefendants. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division dismissingdefendants’ indictments. I. A. In separate proceedings, defendants Melvin Hester, MarkWarner, Anthony McKinney, and Linwood Roundtree were convictedof sex offenses and sentenced to serve special sentences of 4 community supervision for life in accordance with N.J.S.A.2C:43-6.4, after completion of the custodial portions of theirsentences.2 All four defendants had committed their sex offensesmore than ten years before the enactment of the 2014 Amendmentto N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 and were sentenced under an earlieriteration of that statute. At the time of defendants’ sentencing proceedings, underthe 1994 version of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, a trial court wasrequired to impose “a special sentence of community supervisionfor life” on any defendant who committed an enumerated sexoffense before January 14, 2004. 3 See L. 1994, c. 130, § 2(codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 (1995)); L. 2003, c. 267, § 1(PSL effective Jan. 14, 2004); N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(a) and (b).Under CSL, convicted sex offenders, such as defendants, are“supervised as if on parole and subject to conditionsappropriate to protect the public and foster rehabilitation.”2 Defendants’ cases, which raised identical constitutional issues, were consolidated on appeal. Hester, 449 N.J. Super. at 317. 3 The enumerated sex offenses referenced above are “aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, kidnapping pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(c)(2), endangering the welfare of a child by engaging in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), luring or an attempt to commit any such offense.” N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(a).5 L. 1994, c. 130, § 2; N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b); see also State v.Schubert, 212 N.J. 295, 305-08 (2012). As part of their CSL obligations, defendants were requiredto abide by more than twenty general conditions governing theterms of their supervised release. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b).The general conditions relevant to this appeal obligated eachdefendant: to report to his “assigned parole officer asinstructed,” N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b)(2); to “[r]eside at aresidence approved by the assigned parole officer,” N.J.A.C.10A:71-6.11(b)(7); to “[o]btain the permission of the assignedparole officer prior to any change of residence,” N.J.A.C.10A:71-6.11(b)(8); and to “[c]omply with any curfew establishedby the assigned parole officer,” N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b)(19). At the time defendants’ sentences were imposed, a violationof any of the terms of the general conditions of CSL constituteda fourth-degree crime punishable by no more than eighteen monthsin prison. L. 1994, c. 130, § 2; see also N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(4). In the event of a prosecution for a violation,defendants were entitled to all of the procedural protections ofthe criminal justice process, including the right to a grandjury presentation and trial by jury. The 1994 version ofN.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 did not authorize the Parole Board to revokedefendants’ supervised release and return them to prison, as 6 would be the case of a typical parolee. See L. 1994, c. 130,§ 2. B. A brief history of subsequent amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 gives context to the issue before us. In 2003, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4,replacing community supervision for life with parole supervisionfor life. L. 2003, c. 267, § 1 (2003 Amendment). The 2003Amendment did not simply give CSL a new name. Rather, itprovided that an offender sentenced to PSL would be in the legalcustody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections andunder the supervision of the State Parole Board for life. Ibid.Under the 2003 Amendment, a PSL violation could be prosecuted asa fourth-degree offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d), or treated as aparole violation, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(b). In contrast, underCSL, in the event of a violation of a term of supervisedrelease, the Parole Board’s only option is referral to theappropriate prosecuting authority, which then decides whether topresent the case to a grand jury. See Perez, 220 N.J. at 441.The Parole Board has no power to “return a defendant [on CSL] toprison through the parole-revocation process.” Ibid. (citingSanchez v. Parole Bd., 368 N.J. Super. 181, 184 (App. Div.2004)). 7 One other noteworthy distinction between CSL and PSL isthat a defendant on CSL who commits an enumerated offense issubject to a mandatory extended term, but is eligible forparole, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(e)(1) (law effective in 2003 andearlier), whereas a defendant on PSL who commits the sameoffense is subject to a mandatory extended term, but must servethe entirety of his sentence and then resume his PSL status,N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d). Perez, 220 N.J. at 441-42. In 2015, this Court concluded in Perez that the 2003Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, which substituted PSL fordefendants already on CSL, violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses ofour Federal and State Constitutions because the conversionenhanced the penal exposure of those convicted of crimes whenCSL was the applicable law. Id. at 442. In 2014, the Legislature again amended N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4.L. 2013, c. 214, § 4. That Amendment provides that a defendanton CSL who violates the terms of his supervised release may beprosecuted for committing a third-degree crime: A person who violates a condition of a special sentence of community supervision for life . . . pursuant to this section without good cause is guilty of a crime of the third degree [and] . . . shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, unless the court is clearly convinced that the interests of justice so far outweigh the need to deter this conduct and the interest in public safety that a sentence to imprisonment would be a manifest injustice. 8 [ N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(d) (emphasis added).]The statutory language makes clear that a defendant convicted ofa CSL violation faces a presumption of imprisonment. Under the 2014 Amendment, a conviction for a CSL violationalso converts a defendant’s CSL status to PSL status. TheAmendment in relevant part provides: [A] judge imposing sentence on a person who has been convicted of . . . violating a condition of a special sentence of community supervision for life . . . shall include, in addition to any sentence authorized by this Code, a special sentence of parole supervision for life. [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(a).] C. Based on the 2014 Amendment, the Essex County Grand Juryreturned four separate indictments charging defendants Hester,Warner, McKinney, and Roundtree with violating the generalconditions of their CSL. All four defendants were charged withthird-degree offenses: (1) Hester for failing to reside at aresidence approved by a parole officer, to obtain permission tochange his address, and to comply with curfew requirements; (2)Warner for failing to reside at a residence approved by a paroleofficer and to obtain permission to change his address; (3)McKinney for failing to report to his parole officer; and (4)Roundtree for failing to reside at a residence approved by a 9 parole officer, to obtain permission to change his address, andto report to his parole officer. As a consequence of the 2014 Amendment, each defendant, ifconvicted, faced a three-to-five-year prison term with apresumption of incarceration and the imposition of a specialsentence of parole supervision for life. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(a) and (d). D. The trial judges presiding over defendants’ cases foundthat the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 constituted an expost facto law as applied to defendants who were on communitysupervision for life at the time of the alleged violations.Because the Amendment increased the punishment for a violationof the general conditions of defendants’ supervised release froma fourth-degree offense (the law in effect when defendantscommitted their underlying offenses) to a third-degree offense,the judges determined that the 2014 Amendment, as applied,violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and NewJersey Constitutions. The Appellate Division affirmed. Hester, 449 N.J. Super.at 318. The panel held that, in contravention of the Federaland State Ex Post Facto Clauses, the 2014 Amendmentretroactively increased defendants’ punishment for a CSLviolation by elevating the penalty from a fourth-degree to a 10 third-degree crime and by mandating the imposition of PSL.Ibid. In an opinion written by Judge Fasciale, the panelrejected the State’s argument that the Amendment did notincrease the punishment for defendants’ pre-2014 sex offensesbut rather punished the commission of new crimes -- the CSLviolations. Id. at 328-31. We granted the State’s petition for certification. 233N.J. ___ (2017). II. A. The State argues that the Appellate Division erred infinding that the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4constituted an ex post facto law as applied to defendants. TheState maintains that the 2014 Amendment placed defendants onnotice that if they violated the conditions of CSL, they wouldface conviction for a third-degree offense and conversion of CSLto PSL. Because defendants committed their CSL violations afterthe effective date of the Amendment, the State reasons that theycommitted new crimes subject to new statutory punishments andtherefore the Amendment did not relate back or increase thepunishment for defendants’ predicate sex offenses. B. Defendants urge this Court to affirm the AppellateDivision’s dismissal of their indictments on ex post facto 11 grounds. Defendants contend that the 2014 Amendmentsubstantively altered the terms of their supervised release byexposing them to an enhanced punishment -- a third-degree ratherthan a fourth-degree crime -- for a CSL violation and conversionof their CSL status to PSL status. They claim that when adefendant is placed on supervised release, any statutoryamendment enhancing the punishment for a CSL violation, beyondthe punishment existing at the time of the commission of thepredicate offense, relates back to the predicate offense andcannot be retroactively applied.4 III. A. The United States and New Jersey Constitutions prohibit ourState from passing an “ex post facto Law.” U.S. Const. art. I,§ 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post factoLaw[.]”); N.J. Const. art. IV, § 7, ¶ 3 (“The Legislature shallnot pass any . . . ex post facto law[.]”). An ex post facto lawincludes “[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflictsa greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, whencommitted.” Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798);see also Riley, 219 N.J. at 284-85. Thus, “any statute . . .4 Defendants’ challenge to the constitutionality of the 2014 Amendment, as applied, is limited to those defendants on CSL for offenses that predated the enactment of the Amendment. 12 which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, afterits commission, . . . is prohibited as ex post facto.” Beazellv. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 , 169-70 (1925). We have construed New Jersey’s Ex Post Facto Clause in thesame manner as its federal counterpart. Riley, 219 N.J. at 284;Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 42 (1995). Both Ex Post FactoClauses ensure “that individuals can rely on laws until they are'explicitly changed,’” and “restrict[] the government frompassing 'potentially vindictive legislation.’” Riley, 219 N.J.at 284 (quoting Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 , 566 (2000)).Both Clauses are “aimed at laws that 'retroactively . . .increase the punishment for criminal acts.’” Perez, 220 N.J. at 438 (quoting Cal. Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 504(1995)). An ex post facto law is defined by two critical elements.“[F]irst, the law 'must be retrospective, that is, it must applyto events occurring before its enactment’; and second, 'it mustdisadvantage the offender affected by it.’” Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 , 430 (1987) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 ,29 (1981)). A retroactive law that merely effects a proceduralchange to a statutory scheme will fall outside of theconstitutional prohibition. Ibid. (citing Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 , 293 (1977)); Perez, 220 N.J. at 438-39. Incontrast, a law that retroactively “imposes additional 13 punishment to an already completed crime” disadvantages adefendant, and therefore is a prohibited ex post facto law. SeeRiley, 219 N.J. at 285 (citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 , 370 (1997)). The State contends that the “completed crime” is the CSLviolation, whereas defendants assert that the “completed crime”is the predicate offense. Here, because the additionalpunishment attaches to a condition of defendants’ sentences, the“completed crime” necessarily relates back to the predicateoffense. See Perez, 220 N.J. at 442; see also Hester, 449 N.J.Super. at 318 (holding that “the predicate crime, for whichdefendants received the special sentence of CSL, is theoperative 'crime’” in determining that 2014 Amendment violatedEx Post Facto Clauses). B. Parole and probation are punishments imposed for thecommission of a crime, Riley, 219 N.J. at 288, and parole “is,in legal effect, imprisonment,” Anderson v. Corall, 263 U.S. 193 , 196 (1923). “Community supervision for life and itscorollary parole supervision for life are merely indefiniteforms of parole” and are also classified as punishment. Riley,219 N.J. at 288-89; see also Perez, 220 N.J. at 441 (“[T]heLegislature has manifested that CSL and PSL were and are 14 intended to be penal rather than remedial post-sentencesupervisory schemes.”). A statute that retroactively imposes increased“postrevocation penalties [on a scheme of supervised release]relate[s] to the original offense,” raising the issue of whetherthe defendant is “worse off” for ex post facto purposes.Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 , 701 (2000).5 In findingthat postrevocation penalties must be attributed to an originalconviction, the United States Supreme Court in Johnson referredto its summary affirmance of a three-judge panel in Greenfieldv. Scafati, 277 F. Supp. 644 (D. Mass. 1967), aff’d, 390 U.S. 713 (1968), which “forbade on ex post facto grounds theapplication of a Massachusetts statute imposing sanctions forviolation of parole to a prisoner originally sentenced beforeits enactment.” 529 U.S. at 701. In that case, Greenfield was sentenced to prison under alaw that entitled him to good-conduct deductions from hissentence for the duration of his incarceration. 277 F. Supp. at 644-45. While Greenfield was still imprisoned, Massachusetts5 In Johnson, the United States Supreme Court elided the ex post facto issue by finding that a preexisting statute permitted the imposition of the same penalties for a violation of supervised release that the government argued were permissible under the later-enacted statute for which it argued retroactive application. See 529 U.S. at 701-13. 15 amended the law, which then provided that a paroled prisoner whoviolated the terms of his release and was returned to prisonwould be ineligible for good-conduct deductions for the firstsix months of his reincarceration. Id. at 645. After beingparoled, Greenfield violated the terms of his release and wasreturned to prison. Ibid. Greenfield challenged on ex postfacto grounds the amended law’s denial of good-conductdeductions for the period after his reincarceration. Id. at644-45. The three-judge federal district court panel rejectedthe argument that the amended law was not an ex post facto lawbecause Greenfield was on notice of its consequences before heviolated parole. Id. at 646. The panel held that the statutedenying Greenfield good-conduct deductions, enacted after thecommission of his offense and imposition of his sentence,“materially 'alter[ed] the situation of [Greenfield] to hisdisadvantage’” and therefore constituted prohibited ex postfacto legislation. Ibid. (quoting State ex rel. Woodward v. Bd.of Parole, 99 So. 534, 536 (La. 1924)). In Weaver, the Supreme Court approvingly cited Scafati forthe proposition that an inmate cannot be “disadvantaged by newrestrictions on eligibility for release” based on a statuteenacted after the commission of the inmate’s crime. 450 U.S. at 34. 16 In keeping with those precedents, our Court has held that alaw that retroactively increases the punishment for a CSLviolation constitutes an ex post facto law. In Perez, thedefendant was serving a special sentence of communitysupervision for life pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 for crimescommitted in 1998 when he was convicted in 2011 of child luringand endangering the welfare of a child. 220 N.J. at 428-29.The 2003 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 “replaced allreferences to 'community supervision for life’ with 'parolesupervision for life.’” Id. at 429 (citing L. 2003, c. 267,§ 1). The trial court sentenced defendant to a mandatoryextended term without parole eligibility, as though he hadviolated the terms of PSL, based on the 2003 Amendment. Id. at429, 431, 437-38. By contrast, if the pre-amendment version ofN.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 applied, the defendant, given his CSL status,would have been subject to a mandatory extended term for the newoffenses but eligible for parole. Id. at 438. Because thedefendant was sentenced under the amended statute’s PSLdesignation, he was also subject to the Parole Board’s authorityto revoke his supervised release. Id. at 441. We concluded in Perez that the 2003 Amendment rendered morethan “a simple change in nomenclature” or “a simpleclarification of the Legislature’s intent about the nature ofthe special condition of post-sentence supervision of certain 17 sexual offenders.” Id. at 440-43. The 2003 Amendment toN.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 required the defendant “to spend manyadditional years in prison due to this so-called clarification.”Id. at 442. Accordingly, we held that the 2003 Amendment“enhances the punitive consequences of the special sentence ofCSL to [the defendant’s] detriment and violates the federal andstate prohibition of ex post facto legislation.” Ibid. We now turn to the facts of the case before us. IV. A. All four defendants committed sex offenses long before the2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. As a result, they wereconvicted and sentenced to prison terms and a special sentenceof CSL. The terms of their CSL required that they abide bycertain general conditions, which included reporting to a paroleofficer, securing the officer’s permission to live at aresidence or change an address, and complying with any curfewimposed by the officer. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b)(2), (7), (8),and (19). At the time of the commission of their offenses, aviolation of a general condition of CSL was punishable as afourth-degree crime. After the 2014 Amendment, the sameviolation is not only punishable as a third-degree crime, with apresumption of imprisonment, but also converts a defendant’s CSLinto PSL. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(a) and (d). 18 Under PSL, the Parole Board has the authority to simplyrevoke a defendant’s supervised release for a violation of ageneral condition and bypass the panoply of procedural rightsafforded under the criminal justice system, such as the rightsto trial by jury and to have guilt proven beyond a reasonabledoubt.6 In Perez, the State conceded “that the almost-universalpractice since the enactment of [PSL] is to revoke a defendant’sparole and return him to prison” for a condition-of-releaseviolation rather than prosecute him for a crime. 220 N.J. at 441. B. The State contends that the 2014 Amendment is a classicrecidivist statute that enhances the punishment for subsequentoffenses and therefore is not an ex post facto law. However,the 2014 Amendment operates differently than recidivist statutesthat have withstood challenge under the Federal and State ExPost Facto Clauses. See, e.g., State v. Oliver, 162 N.J. 580,587 (2000). In Oliver, we upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey’sthree-strikes law, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1, which mandated the6 At a parole-revocation hearing, the Parole Board may revoke a defendant’s parole solely on clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the conditions of parole. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63(d). An administrative officer -- not a judicial officer -- sits as the final arbiter of the facts. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.63. 19 imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parolefor defendants convicted of certain violent crimes on threeseparate occasions. Id. at 583-85, 595. In doing so, we notedthat the United States Supreme Court has found “that recidiviststatutes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause if they were onthe books at the time the triggering offense was committed.”Id. at 587 (citing Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 , 732 (1948)).In Oliver, the three-strikes law was on the books at the timethe defendant committed the third qualifying violent offense,and therefore he was on notice of the legal consequences of hisconduct. Id. at 587-91. Importantly, the three-strikes law and other recidiviststatutes enhance a defendant’s punishment for a subsequent crimebecause of that defendant’s commission of previous crimes. Haddefendants in the present cases committed a crime, such asanother sex offense -- as opposed to violations of the generalconditions of their supervised release -- an applicablerecidivist statute would allow an enhanced punishment for thesubsequent offense. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 2C:14-6. But here, the2014 Amendment related not to the commission of a subsequentcrime but rather to the terms of the sentence imposed fordefendants’ prior crimes. The supervised release requirementsof reporting to a parole officer, securing permission to live ata residence or change an address, and complying with any curfew 20 imposed were integral parts of defendants’ special sentences ofCSL. The punishment for violating those regulatory requirements-- and other regulations set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:71-6.11(b) --was established when defendants committed their crimes andreceived their sentences. This case is not substantively different from Perez, wherewe held that the 2003 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, whichretroactively altered a defendant’s status from CSL to PSL,exposed a defendant to an increased punishment for a violationof supervised release, and therefore contravened the Federal andState Ex Post Facto Clauses. 220 N.J. at 427-28, 442. Thiscase is also indistinguishable from Scafati, where the UnitedStates Supreme Court affirmed a three-judge federal districtcourt panel’s injunction of a Massachusetts law thatretroactively altered the manner of awarding good-conductdeductions after the defendant’s sentence but before he violatedparole. 390 U.S. 713 ; 277 F. Supp. at 644 -46. The 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 “enhances thepunitive consequences of the special sentence of CSL to [thedefendant’s] detriment” in the same way that the 2003 Amendmentdid in Perez. See 220 N.J. at 442. Moreover, the 2014Amendment retroactively imposes increased postrevocationpenalties in the manner condemned by Scafati, 277 F. Supp. at 644-46, and Weaver, 450 U.S. at 34. 21 In effect, the 2014 Amendment materially altereddefendants’ prior sentences to their disadvantage -- increasingto a third-degree crime a violation of the terms of theirsupervised release and converting their CSL to PSL, thusempowering the Parole Board to return them to prison for aviolation, such as failing to report a change of address. The2014 Amendment effected not a simple procedural change butrather one that offends the very principles animating the ExPost Facto Clauses of our Federal and State Constitutions. V. For the reasons expressed, we hold that the retroactiveapplication of the 2014 Amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, whichenhanced the punishments for defendants’ violations of the termsof their supervised release under CSL, violates the Ex PostFacto Clause of the United States Constitution. We also holdthat, independent of our federal constitutional analysis, the2014 Amendment violates defendants’ rights under the New JerseyConstitution’s Ex Post Facto Clause. See Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , 1041 (1983). We therefore affirm the judgment of theAppellate Division dismissing defendants’ indictments, whichcharged them with the third-degree crime of violating thegeneral conditions of their supervised release under N.J.A.C.10A:71-6.11(b). 22 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE ALBIN’s opinion. 23