Submitted January 29, 2014.
Approved for Publication June 17, 2014.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 11-05-0606.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant ( Michael B. Jones, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Sara B. Liebman, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges GRALL, WAUGH and ACCURSO. The opinion of the court was delivered by GRALL, P.J.A.D.
[436 N.J.Super. 108] GRALL, P.J.A.D.
Defendant was arrested for a new crime while participating in the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP) following modification of a custodial sentence on a prior conviction to permit that participation. R. 3:21-10(b)(6). The precise question presented is whether defendant is entitled to jail credits pursuant to Rule 3:21-8 against the sentence for the new crime from the date of his arrest for that crime until the date he was either sentenced by the judge for the new crime or resentenced by the three-judge ISP panel for " fail[ure] to perform satisfactorily following entry into" ISP, R. 3:21-10(e). We conclude that a defendant in this circumstance is entitled to jail credits for days in confinement from the date of arrest to the date the first sentence is imposed.
[436 N.J.Super. 109] Our decision is informed by State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24, 26 A.3d 376 (2011), which addresses jail credits in a case involving multiple charges, R. 3:21-8; N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b). And it is informed by State v. DiAngelo, 434 N.J.Super. 443, 84 A.3d 1019 (App. Div. 2014), which applies Hernandez in a case involving resentencing for a violation of probation.
The essential facts are procedural. In February 2010, defendant Christoph Adams was convicted of second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b), and second-degree receipt of stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, and in July 2010 he was sentenced to concurrent four-year terms of imprisonment. Defendant's subsequent motion to change that " custodial sentence to permit [his] entry into [ISP]" was granted by the three-judge ISP panel pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(b)(6).
While participating in ISP, on February 16, 2011, defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted for crimes committed on that ...