Title: State v. Shawn Fowlkes a/k/a Shawn Ward, etc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-31-00
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: June 26, 2001

(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 interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). LaVecchia, J., writing for the Court. On July 27, 1998, Shawn Fowlkes pled guilty to third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute it at the Seth Boyden Housing Projects in Newark, a location that was within 1,000 feet of a school. The offense occurred on February 2, 1997. In exchange for Fowlkes' plea, the State agreed to dismiss other charges and to recommend a seven-year sentence with a parole ineligibility term of forty-two months. The State's recommendation was consistent with the Guidelines established by the Attorney General in response to this Court's decision in State v. Brimage 153 N.J. 1 (1998). Fowlkes appealed his sentence, arguing to the Appellate Division that the application of the Brimage Guidelines to his offense, which occurred prior to the decision in Brimage, amounted to a violation of the ex post facto clauses of the federal and State constitutions. The Appellate Division affirmed the sentence, and this Court granted Fowlkes' petition for certification. HELD: Although the Court generally agrees with the Attorney General's conclusion that the Brimage Guidelines should apply to all pending cases, an exception is necessary when application of the post-Brimage guidelines would result in a harsher minimum period of parole ineligibility for a defendant whose criminal act occurred prior to the Court's decision in State v. Brimage. 1. In a series of decisions over ten years, the Court has sought to implement a mandate to avoid the imposition of arbitrary and inconsistent guilty-plea generated sentences under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987(CRDA). (pp. 5-8) 2. In State v. Brimage, the Court directed the Attorney General to develop new statewide guidelines governing drug offenses under the CRDA. The Court ruling in Brimage was made prospective, except in respect of cases on direct appeal. (Brimage himself was given the option of vacating or renegotiating his plea.) The Attorney General issued Brimage Guidelines that included a Table of Authorized Plea Offers. The Table sets forth presumptive plea offers based on a defendant's offense, prior criminal history, and the timing of the plea offer. (pp. 8-11) 3. Although the Brimage Guidelines generally should be applied prospectively to all pending cases, a limited exception is necessary when application of the post-Brimage guidelines at sentencing would result in a harsher minimum parole ineligibility term for a defendant whose offense predated the Brimage decision. (pp. 12-13) 4. The Court views this matter as a clarification of Brimage. As such, the Court has based its conclusion on grounds of fairness and equity. It therefore declines to address the constitutional arguments raised by Fowkles. (pp. 13-16) 5. Under the facts of this case, the State's argument that applying the pre-Brimage guidelines to Fowkles will violate that decision's goal of eliminating intercounty disparities in plea sentences carries insufficient force. (pp. 16-17) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LaVECCHIA's opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAWN FOWLKES a/k/a SHAWN WARD, ALI BURGER and WAND- SHAWN BURGER, Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________ Argued March 26, 2001 -- Decided June 26, 2001 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Diane Toscano, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Gerard C. Sims, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by LaVECCHIA, J. This appeal involves a defendant's plea of guilty to a school- zone drug offense under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1987 (CDRA), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-1 to 36A-1. To satisfy constitutional requirements, in 1992 the Attorney General promulgated two plea- agreement directives to govern prosecutorial discretion in structuring plea offers under the CDRA. Directive Implementing Guidelines Governing Plea-Bargaining and Discretionary Decisions in Drug Prosecutions Involving Mandatory Terms, from Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, to the Director, Division of Criminal Justice and All County Prosecutors (Sept. 15, 1992) (Mandatory Term Guidelines); Directive Implementing Guidelines for Determining Whether to Apply for an Extended Term Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43- 6(f), from Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General, to Director, Division of Criminal Justice and All County Prosecutors (Apr. 20, 1992) (Extended Term Guidelines). Those plea-bargaining guidelines were in effect when defendant committed his drug offense in February 1997. One year later, this Court decided State v. Brimage, in which we held that plea-bargaining guidelines for offenses then in place were not consistent throughout the State and must be made uniform. 153 N.J. 1, 23 (1998). In response to Brimage, the Attorney General promulgated new guidelines effective May 20, 1998. Attorney General Guidelines for Negotiating Cases Under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 (May 20, 1998) (Brimage Guidelines). Also, the Attorney General directed that the Brimage Guidelines shall apply to all pending cases. Attorney General Directive No. 1998-1 Prosecuting Cases Under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act (May 20, 1998).See footnote 11 case is remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LaVECCHIA's opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. NO. A-31 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SHAWN FOWLKES a/k/a SHAWN WARD, ALI BURGER and WAND- SHAWN BURGER, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED June 26, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz