Court Opinion

ID: 9928293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 15:07:08.199081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:33.145858
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                    APPELLATE DIVISION
                                    DOCKET NO. A-0380-22
                                      APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE MATTER OF
                                             January 31, 2024
REGISTRANT J.R.1
_______________________                   APPELLATE DIVISION

            Argued December 5, 2023 – Decided January 31, 2024

            Before Judges Haas, Gooden Brown and Puglisi.

            On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. ML-
            0222.

            James H. Maynard argued the cause for appellant J.R.
            (Maynard Law Office, LLC, attorney; James H.
            Maynard, on the briefs).

            Randolph E. Mershon, III, Assistant Prosecutor,
            argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey
            (Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
            attorney; David Michael Liston, Assistant Prosecutor,
            of counsel; Brian Dennis Gillet and Randolph E.
            Mershon, III, of counsel and on the briefs).

      The opinion of the court was delivered by

PUGLISI, J.S.C. (temporarily assigned).

1
  Although this case was entitled State of New Jersey v. J.R., we have
amended the caption on appeal to reflect the protocol for registration matters.
        In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, we are asked to consider

whether a New Jersey court may consider a motion to terminate the

registration requirements of an individual subject to Megan's Law 2 in New

Jersey but residing in another state. We hold that although a New Jersey court

may have jurisdiction to decide the motion, it must decide on a case-by-case

basis whether the registrant has standing to bring the motion. Because the

Megan's Law judge correctly determined J.R. lacked standing to have his

motion decided in New Jersey, we affirm.

        In 1993, J.R. pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child,

N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a), and was sentenced to five years' probation. Because he

was on probation on October 31, 1994, the effective date of Megan's Law, J.R.

was required to register commencing at that time. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(c)(1). In

2002, he pleaded guilty to failure to register, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a)(3), and was

sentenced to three years' probation. Although the exact date is unclear from

the record before us, J.R. moved to Montana sometime in 2021.

        Megan's Law is intended "to protect the community from the dangers of

recidivism by sexual offenders." In re Registrant C.A., 146 N.J. 71, 80 (1996)

(citing N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1(a)). The statute requires offenders who have been

convicted, adjudicated delinquent, or found not guilty by reason of insanity of

2
    N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23.

                                                                          A-0380-22
                                        2
certain sex offenses, including an out-of-state offense that is similar to an

enumerated offense, to register with the appropriate law enforcement agency in

New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 to -4. It also requires non-resident offenders

who are required to register in their home state to register in New Jersey if

they are enrolled in an educational institution in New Jersey or engaged in

employment or a vocation for a requisite period of time in New Jersey.

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a)(2).

      Megan's Law contains a termination provision, which permits "a person

required to register" to

            make application to the Superior Court of this State to
            terminate the obligation upon proof that the person has
            not committed an offense within [fifteen] years
            following conviction or release from a correctional
            facility for any term of imprisonment imposed,
            whichever is later, and is not likely to pose a threat to
            the safety of others.

            [N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f).]

      Montana's version of our Megan's Law is the Sexual or Violent Offender

Registration Act (SVORA), Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-501 to -520. Under that

statute, a sexual offender is defined as "a person who has been convicted of or,

in youth court, found to have committed or been adjudicated for a sexual . . .

offense" enumerated in the statute. Id. at -502(11). A sexual offender includes

an individual who has been convicted of "any violation of a law of another

                                                                         A-0380-22
                                       3
state, . . . that is reasonably equivalent to a violation listed" as a sexual offense

"or for which the offender was required to register as a sexual offender after an

adjudication or conviction." Id. at -502(10)(a)(xvii).

      SVORA also contains a provision permitting a registrant to petition the

court for relief from the registration requirement. After ten years for a low -

risk offender or twenty-five years for a high-risk offender, the "offender may

petition the sentencing court or the district court for the judicial district in

which the offender resides for an order relieving the offender of the duty to

register." Id. at -506(3). A court may grant the petition if it finds "(a) the

offender has maintained a clean record during their period of registration; and

(b) continued registration is not necessary for public protection and that relief

from registration is in the best interests of society." Ibid.

      J.R. filed a motion to terminate his registration requirements in the

Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County. Although he is statutorily

barred from relief under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f) because he has a subsequent

conviction for failure to register, he sought to challenge the constitutionality of

that provision.3 Setting aside the merits of his request for relief, J.R. argued

that the New Jersey court was the only court with jurisdiction to decide his

3
  We have since upheld the constitutionality of the "lifelong registration and
community notification requirements on registrants who fail to satisfy
subsection (f)." In re M.H., 475 N.J. Super. 580, 595 (App. Div. 2023).

                                                                              A-0380-22
                                         4
motion because Megan's Law provides that a registrant "may make application

to the Superior Court of this State to terminate the obligation." N.J.S.A. 2C:7-

2(f).

        In the Law Division and on appeal, J.R. and the State focused their

arguments on the court's jurisdiction to hear the matter; however, we agree

with the Megan's Law judge that the determinative issue was not one of

jurisdiction, but of standing.

        "Whether a party has standing to pursue a claim is a question of law

subject to de novo review." Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden

Planning Bd., 234 N.J. 403, 414 (2018) (citations omitted). "We therefore

accord no 'special deference' to the 'trial court's interpretation of the law and

the legal consequences that flow from established facts.'"          Id. at 414-15

(quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366,

378 (1995)).

        Jurisdiction and standing are two separate threshold determinations

pertaining to whether the court may hear a case. N.J. Citizen Action v. Riviera

Motel Corp., 296 N.J. Super. 402, 410-11 (App. Div. 1997). Subject-matter

jurisdiction involves "a threshold determination as to whether the [c]ourt is

legally authorized to decide the question presented." Id. at 411.

             Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to "the power of a
             court to hear and determine cases of the class to which

                                                                           A-0380-22
                                       5
             the proceeding in question belongs. It solely rests
             upon the court's having been granted such power by
             the Constitution or by valid legislation, and cannot be
             vested by agreement of the parties."

             [Ibid. (italicization omitted) (quoting State v. Osborn,
             32 N.J. 117, 122 (1960)).]

There is no question the New Jersey Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear a

motion to terminate a registration requirement, as its authority is plain in the

statute.

      Standing, ripeness and mootness, however, are justiciability doctrines,

Jackson v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div. 2000), and they

"refer[] to whether a matter is appropriate for judicial review." N.J. Citizen

Action, 296 N.J. Super. at 411. "In order to possess standing, the plaintiff

must have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation, a real adverseness

with respect to the subject matter, and there must be a substantial likelihood

that the plaintiff will suffer harm in the event of an unfavorable decision." Id.

at 409-10.

      Other justiciability doctrines include mootness and ripeness.          The

doctrine of mootness requires "that judicial power is to be exercised only when

a party is immediately threatened with harm." Stop & Shop Supermarket Co.

v. Cnty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. Super. 286, 291 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting

Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010)). But

                                                                          A-0380-22
                                        6
"controversies which have become moot or academic prior to judicial

resolution ordinarily will be dismissed." Ibid. (quoting N.J. Div. of Youth &

Family Servs. v. W.F., 434 N.J. Super. 288, 297 (App. Div. 2014)).

      Ripeness    seeks    "to   avoid    premature    adjudication    of   abstract

disagreements." Garden State Equal. v. Dow, 434 N.J. Super. 163, 188 (Law

Div. 2013) (citing Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49 (1967)). A

"claim is not ripe for adjudication if the facts illustrate that the rights or status

of the parties are 'future, contingent, and uncertain.'"       Id. at 189 (quoting

Indep. Realty Co. v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 376 N.J. Super. 295, 302 (App. Div.

2005)). A claim is only ripe "if 'there is a real and immediate' threat" to the

plaintiff. Ibid. (quoting K. Hovnanian Cos. of N. Cent. Jersey v. N.J. Dep't of

Env't Prot., 379 N.J. Super. 1, 10 (2005)).

      In determining whether J.R. had standing, the judge examined both

Megan's Law and SVORA. He found J.R.'s conviction for endangering the

welfare of a child was not a "reasonable equivalent" to any of the sexual

offenses enumerated in SVORA at that time. 4 Thus, J.R. was required to

4
   SVORA has since been amended to include endangering the welfare of a
child as a registrable offense. See Mont. Code Ann. 46-23-502(10)(a)(x)
(effective October 1, 2023). Although J.R. would now presumably be required
to register in Montana because endangering the welfare of a child under
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) is a "reasonable equivalent" to Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-

                                                                              A-0380-22
                                         7
register in Montana because he was convicted of an offense for which he was

required to register in New Jersey. Mont. Code Ann. § 46-23-502(10)(a)(xvii).

      The judge also correctly determined J.R. had no New Jersey registration

requirement while he lived in Montana. He was not enrolled in school or work

here, nor did he intend to be. Therefore, he was not "a person required to

register" under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f).

      As the judge found, J.R. had no stake in the outcome of the matter

because his registration obligation in Montana was dependent on his prior

conviction of an offense requiring registration, which would remain so

regardless of the outcome of his motion. He could not show that he would

suffer harm in the court's denying the motion, as it did not impact his Montana

registration obligation; conversely, he could not show he would benefit in the

court's granting the motion, as again, a favorable decision would not terminate

his registration obligation in Montana.         Because J.R. was not facing or

suffering harm that a New Jersey court could address, he lacked standing to

have a New Jersey court decide his motion. For these reasons, J.R.'s motion

was also moot and not ripe for adjudication and was correctly dismissed for

failing to present a justiciable controversy.

___________________
622(2)(b)(ii), this additional ground for J.R.'s registration requirement in
Montana does not alter our analysis of standing.

                                                                        A-0380-22
                                         8
      J.R. relies heavily on his assertion that, regardless of his residency in

another state, he nevertheless continues to have Megan's Law "status" in New

Jersey. We reject this argument because there is no legal "status" as a Megan's

Law offender—either there is a requirement to register in New Jersey or not.

The word "status" appears nowhere in the statute and to the extent the term has

appeared in published decisions, it refers to an offender's statutory requirement

to register in New Jersey, which is not present here. Cf. In re C.K., 233 N.J.

44, 54 (2018) (Registrant "expressed his feelings of isolation, anxiety, and

depression resulting from his Megan's Law status, . . . and his fear that his

registrant status will interfere with his ability to one day be a normal parent.");

In re L.E., 366 N.J. Super. 61, 63 (App. Div. 2003) ("Registrants argue that . . .

they are entitled to have their Megan's Law status terminated because they

were under the age of fourteen when their sex offenses were committed and

are now over eighteen."); In re Commitment of T.J., 401 N.J. Super. 111, 116

(App. Div. 2008) ("The judge commented on T.J.'s Megan's Law status.");

State ex rel. D.A., 385 N.J. Super. 411, 418 (App. Div. 2006) (Registrant's

"tier classification determines to whom notice will be given of the juvenile's

Megan's Law status."). Thus, we reject J.R.'s assertion that this impalpable

"status" gives him standing.

                                                                            A-0380-22
                                        9
      J.R. also claims he suffers negative effects from his New Jersey "status"

because he is subject to the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification

Act (SORNA), 34 U.S.C. § 20911 to §20932, and International Megan's Law,

34 U.S.C. § 21501 to § 21510. We find this argument unavailing because it is

not based on a defensible reading of the statutes.

      "Title I of the Adam Walsh Act—known as [SORNA]—establishes a

national baseline for sex offender registration and requires that states receiving

federal crime funds substantially comply with the guidelines it outlines."

C.K., 233 N.J. at 61 (citing 34 U.S.C. § 20927, § 10151). "In effect, SORNA

serves as model legislation that can be adopted in part or in whole by the

states." Ibid.

      "SORNA classifies sex offenders into three risk tiers—Tiers I, II, and

III—for registration and notification purposes, depending solely on the nature

of the offense." Id. at 62 (citing 34 U.S.C. § 20911). "The offender's tier

assignment, in turn, determines the duration of his registration requirements."

Ibid. (citing 34 U.S.C. § 20915(a)).

      Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders, also known as

International Megan's Law, requires certain sex offenders to report intended

international travel. See 34 U.S.C. § 21501 to § 21510, 18 U.S.C. § 2250. It

defines a "covered sex offender" as "an individual who is a sex offender by

                                                                           A-0380-22
                                       10
reason of having been convicted of a sex offense against a minor," 34 U.S.C. §

21502(3); and also includes a "sex offender under SORNA," 34 U.S.C. §

21502(9).

      Thus, any federal registration or reporting requirements arise from J.R.'s

conviction, not an intangible "status" in New Jersey, and he has not otherwise

identified any case or statute in support of his contention. Because a New

Jersey court's decision on his motion to terminate would not impact any federal

obligation under SORNA or International Megan's Law, these requirements

also do not give rise to standing.

      We note the current Megan's Law Bench Manual § 904, dated August

2020, contains the following statement:     "At the Megan's Law meeting at

Judicial College on November 24, 2015, the Megan's Law [j]udges agreed that

registrants residing in another state should file for termination of the

registration obligation in the state where they are domiciled."        This view

oversimplifies the issue of standing. We recognize that

            [s]ex offender registration and notification laws are
            widely used. The statutes, regulations, and laws
            addressing sex offender registration and notification in
            all fifty states, the District of Columbia, the five
            principal United States territories, and over 125
            federally recognized Indian Tribes are varied and
            complex.      Each local system makes its own
            determinations about who is required to register,
            which crimes are registerable offenses, what

                                                                          A-0380-22
                                      11
            information offenders must provide,           and   what
            consequences are inherent in the scheme.

            [In re B.B., 461 N.J. Super. 303, 308-09 (App. Div.
            2019).]

In deciding whether an out-of-state registrant has standing to bring a motion to

terminate in New Jersey, the Megan's Law judge must necessarily consider the

statutory scheme of the jurisdiction where the registrant resides. This ensures

a registrant has a forum to bring a motion consistent with the determinations of

both jurisdictions regarding what is in the best interests of protecting its

people.

      While some jurisdictions have enacted registration schemes similar to

New Jersey and Montana, where an application to terminate must be decided

by the court where a registrant resides, other jurisdictions determine the

duration of registration based on the obligation in the state of conviction. For

example, some states may require a resident with an out-of-state conviction to

register for as long as the registration obligation in the state of conviction, or

the longer of the two states' registration obligations, or until the state of

conviction terminates the obligation. 5     In those instances, subject to the

5
  Cf. Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-253(a)), Kansas (Kan. Stat. Ann. §
22-4906(k)), Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(b)), New Mexico
(N.M. Stat. Ann. 29-11A-4(L)(3)), Pennsylvania (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. §
9799.15(a)(7)), and Utah (Utah Code Ann. § 77-41-105(3)(b)).

                                                                           A-0380-22
                                       12
Megan's Law judge's individual determination, we presume a registrant would

have standing to bring a motion to terminate in New Jersey. In those scenarios

the registrant has a stake in the outcome of the motion because it would affe ct

the obligation to register in the state where the registrant resides.

      To the extent we have not expressly addressed any issues raised by J.R.,

it is because they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

      Affirmed.

                                                                         A-0380-22
                                         13