Call Today 800-709-1131

Located at 40 West High Street Somerville, NJ 08876


Driving While Suspended After DWI, Means Jail

Posted by Britt Simon on Feb 5 2015

Once again the New Jersey appeals court misses the boat. This is what happens when politicians appoint judges who lack the ability to think outside the box. In the case at hand, the state law requires that those who drive while suspended for DUI and are charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b (a fourth degree crime) were subjected to a minimum of 180 days in jail. While these appellate judges seem to feel there was a "well reasoned opinion" by the prosecutor, it is clear that these judges are limited in their ability to view the statute and the judges authority and need for discretion. It's obviously time to clean the dead wood off the bench.
While a statutory requirement for 180 days is present in the guiding statute, these appellate judges seem to forget their job is to act with discretion still with in accordance of the law therefore a court may suspend the imposition of a sentence on a person who is been convicted of offense or alter it as necessary as allowed for in N.J. Stat 2C:43-2; State v. Rivera 124 NJ 122, 124-125 (1991).
Quite frankly, any appellate judge that would seek to limit the court's discretion is an embarrassment to the judiciary and an embarrassment to the practice of law. If not specifically prohibited, judicial discretion should always be allowed. 
If you've been charged with a DUI in NJ, contact one of our NJ DUI Defense Lawyers today for your free consultation 800-709-1131.
Get Help Now

NJ Court Says Driving While Suspended After DWI Means Jail

, New Jersey Law Journal

A New Jersey appeals court has said in a published ruling that defendants who are convicted of or who plead guilty to a charge of driving while suspended following multiple driving while intoxicated offenses are not allowed to serve their jail sentences under home supervision or other alternative programs.

Instead, the three-judge Appellate Division panel said Feb. 4 in six consolidated cases, that the law is clear in stating that those defendants must serve a minimum of 180 days in jail with no opportunity for parole.

“A sentence to a noncustodial, ‘alternative program,’ instead of jail, is illegal,” said Appellate Division Judge Michael Haas. Judges Susan Reisner and Ellen Koblitz joined in the ruling, State v. Harris.

The ruling is an extension of an Appellate Division ruling from last August—State v. French—in which a panel comprising Koblitz and Judges Jose Fuentes and Carmen Messano said a 90-day jail sentence followed by a 90-day stint in an in-patient rehabilitation facility could not be substituted for the mandated 180-day jail sentence.

The Feb. 4 ruling involves six defendants—John Harris III, Sabrina King, Robert Kaczak, Kristin Mitchell, William Hangstorfer and Mandi Filer—who pleaded guilty to violating N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b, driving while their licenses were suspended for multiple driving while intoxicated offenses.

A violation of the statute is a fourth-degree offense.

As required by the statute, judges sentenced the defendants to 180 days of incarceration, but said their sentences could be served either at home under the Home Electronic Detention System or at a County Supplemental Labor Services Program.

The Camden County Prosecutor’s Office appealed those sentences, saying they were illegal, and the Appellate Division agreed.

“This is a well-reasoned opinion,” Assistant Camden County Prosecutor Jason Magid said. “It restates what the appeals court already stated in French.”

“From a societal perspective, it highlights the legislature’s and the courts’ clear purpose and intent to protect the public from these recidivist offenders.”

Jeffrey Zucker, who represented King, labeled the ruling “disappointing.”

“These cases were distinguishable from French,” said Zucker, of Zucker Steinberg Sonstein & Wixted in Camden, N.J. “If you’re in home detention and escape or don’t report, you can be charged with a crime.

“This is another form of incarceration,” he said. “We had hoped that the Appellate Division would have seen it that way.”

 Jeffrey Evan Gold, who focuses on DWI cases but who was not involved in this case, said the ruling “is a conservative reading of the statute.”

“There is nothing in the statute that says judges can’t do this. The statute could say, ‘Don’t do this,’ but it doesn’t,” said Gold, who runs a firm in Cherry Hill, N.J. “Alternative programs have been the hallmarks of our system.

“I think the court is making a policy judgment,” Gold said. “I don’t think this is required by law.”

In the ruling, Haas cited a portion of the statute that says “the sentence shall include a fixed minimum sentence of not less than 180 days during which the defendant will not be eligible for parole.”

“In view of this clear language, we hold that a defendant convicted of N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26b must be sentenced to 180 days in jail without parole, with no sentencing alternative available,” Haas said. “The legislature’s purpose in requiring a period of ‘imprisonment’ for the offense, with no possibility of parole, is also clear.”

Alternatives to jail, such as home arrest or community service, do not protect the public like incarceration, Haas said.

“This public safety consideration is especially relevant in the case of a defendant who loses his or her driving privileges for DWI, but then continues to drive despite the license suspension,” Haas said.

If you've been charged with a DUI in NJ, contact one of our NJ DUI Defense Attorney today for your free consultation 800-709-1131.

Get Help Now

Topics: DUI

Subscribe to Email Updates

Recent Posts

Posts by Topic

see all