June 9, 2011
DAVID HOHSFIELD, APPELLANT,
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
On appeal from the Department of Corrections.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted May 17, 2011
Before Judges Yannotti and Espinosa.
Appellant appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections denying his request to recalculate his jail and gap time credits.
Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms on two separate indictments. On April 24, 2009, he was sentenced to eighteen months on Indictment No. 07-10-1651-I, and received 58 days jail credit for the period from February 25 through April 23, 2009. On December 18, 2009, he was sentenced to a concurrent term of five years on Indictment No. 08-04-0516-I, and received 129 days jail credit for the period from August 11 through December 17, 2009. The Judgment of Conviction (JOC) was later amended to award appellant 238 days gap time credit for the period from April 24 through December 17, 2009. The amending order did not, however, vacate the jail credits awarded in the original JOC.
In this appeal, appellant claims he is entitled to both the jail credits and gap time credits for the time from August 11 through December 17, 2009. He complains that the adjustment affected his maximum release date and argues he should be entitled to retract his guilty plea.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final decision of an administrative agency is limited. Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown, 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). We must sustain the agency's action in the absence of a "'clear showing' that it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it lacks fair support in the record[.]" Ibid.
After carefully considering the record and the briefs, we are satisfied appellant's arguments lack any merit. The record shows appellant has been credited with 58 days of jail credit and 238 days of gap time credit, consistent with the amending order. If appellant disagrees with the application of the credits set forth in the JOC, his remedy is to seek clarification in the trial court. However, since it appears that all credits appellant is entitled to receive pursuant to the JOC have been applied, the Department's decision is amply supported by the record and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.