State ex rel. A.G., A-2549-20
| Decision Date | 22 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | A-2549-20 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.G., a Juvenile. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Argued October 18, 2021
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket Nos. FJ-03-0029-21, FJ-03-0030-21 FJ-03-0031-21 and FJ-03-0038-21.
Jennifer B. Paszkiewicz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney; Jennifer B. Paszkiewicz, of counsel and on the brief).
Kareem J. Crawford argued the cause for respondent A.G.
Before Judges Rothstadt, Mayer and Natali.
We granted leave to appeal to review a Law Division order denying the State's waiver application for A.G., a then sixteen-year-old juvenile, who faced charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and related weapons offenses.
The court denied the State's motion solely on a technical, procedural ground; namely, that the State inadvertently missed the statutory sixty-day deadline to file its application by forty-eight hours, and failed to establish "good cause," under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1, warranting an extension. We reverse and remand for the court to issue substantive findings on the State's waiver application.
The charges against A.G. are based on two incidents that occurred on April 16, 2020 involving three other juveniles. According to the State, after J.H. (John)[1] directed insulting comments over social media to A.G. regarding A.G.'s deceased father they agreed to a fistfight at A.G.'s residence later that day. When John and his friend, A.H. (Alan), arrived at A.G.'s house, A.G. allegedly pulled out a gun and shot it in John's direction, causing him and Alan to flee in their vehicle.
A.G and John agreed, again via social media, to a second meeting later that night where they promised to "put the guns down." John arrived again with Alan, and a third individual, D.R. (Daniel). When John exited his vehicle, A.G. allegedly pulled out a weapon, pointed it at Daniel and fired. Daniel and John stated they ran back to their car and drove away but recalled hearing additional shots fired. Ballistics reports confirmed additional shots had been fired, entering through the rear windshield of the car and hitting the back of the passenger seat headrest. The police were unable to speak to A.G. regarding the incidents, but his mother stated on the night of the shooting, he was at home asleep.
On July 17, 2020, A.G. was charged with first-degree attempted murder, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm, second-degree aggravated assault, and fourthdegree aggravated assault pointing a firearm. On September 17, 2020, the prosecutor sought A.G.'s waiver to adult court arguing A.G.'s actions satisfied N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(a)-(k), and particularly factors (a), (b), (c), (d), (f), (g), and (k). That application was filed two days after the statutory sixty-day period. See N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(a).
The State gave significant weight to factor (a), "the nature and circumstances of the offense[s] charged" because of "A.G.'s conduct in possessing a firearm and discharging it in the direction of other juveniles, on two separate occasions." The State further noted that A.G. was exclusively responsible for the offenses under factor (c) and showed a "degree of maturity and planning" under factor (d), as "his attacks on [John, Alan, and Daniel], include[ed] deceiving them into believing that he would not bring a gun to the nighttime fight."
On September 2, 2020, defendant's counsel requested a thirty-day extension of the waiver deadline to allow A.G. extra time to negotiate with the State with the goal of resolving the case "in juvenile [court]." The State then filed its waiver application on September 17, 2020, which was, as noted, two days after the filing deadline. The motion judge scheduled a waiver hearing for the end of October 2020 at the request of defendant's counsel in part because defendant's expert's psychological report was not yet complete.
After the parties submitted their briefs, the judge recused himself, citing an undisclosed "circumstance beyond the [c]ourt's control." The matter was thereafter transferred to a second motion judge.
It is unclear from the record why the second judge did not address the consequence of the State's untimely waiver application as a threshold matter. Instead, the parties appeared before the second judge to address whether the court would rely on the transcripts from the original waiver hearing, or if a second hearing with the re-introduction of previously admitted evidence was necessary. Defendant's counsel requested the matter be reheard with live testimony so that the judge could make credibility determinations and consider the evidence with a "fresh set of eyes." The court agreed and conducted a second hearing.
The State again conceded it had miscalculated the sixty-day deadline for filing the waiver application. The parties nevertheless proceeded with the hearing, with the State presenting the responding police officer and neighbors who heard the gunshots on April 16, 2020. A.G.'s psychological expert did not testify.
After the conclusion of the second hearing, the judge issued an oral decision denying the State's application, concluding it was indisputably late and the State failed to establish good cause. Relying on principles of statutory interpretation, the judge explained that the deadline stated in N.J.S.A 2A:4A-26.1 is "mandatory." He further reasoned that the State failed to establish good cause because "the circumstances presented [. . .], simple inadvertence, not occasioned by maliciousness or deceitfulness, are incompatible with the [good cause] standard for seeking extension under the waiver statute." The judge further noted
The State moved for a stay pending appeal. Defendant's counsel objected and also requested A.G. be released to the custody of his family. The court granted a stay of the trial pending appeal but detained A.G. The judge also supplemented his oral decision with a written opinion.
After the State filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal, the judge vacated the stay pending appeal and scheduled a trial date. We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal and stayed the trial pending appeal.
We typically review waiver decisions for an abuse of discretion. State in the Interest of V.A., 212 N.J. 1, 25 (2012). A reviewing court looks to "whether the correct legal standard has been applied, whether inappropriate factors have been considered, and whether the exercise of discretion constitute[s] a clear error of judgment in all of the circumstances." State in the Interest of J.F., 446 N.J.Super. 39, 51-52 (App. Div. 2016) (quoting State v. R.G.D., 108 N.J. 1, 15 (1987)).
We recognize the issue on appeal is more nuanced, as the motion judge did not rule on the merits of the waiver application. However, we also review a trial court's determination regarding the existence or absence of good cause under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Stypulkowski, 176 N.J.Super. 524, 528 (App. Div. 1980) (applying an abuse of discretion standard of review to a good cause determination for resentencing).
Before us, the State argues, as it did before both motion judges, that it satisfied the good cause standard under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1 and its motion to extend the waiver deadline should have been granted in light of the totality of circumstances, which included A.G.'s willing participation in the waiver proceedings without objection. Further, it contends "there is no assertion of prejudice to the juvenile, nor has the State's inadvertent miscalculation impacted the timeline of the subsequent waiver proceedings in any way."
A.G. disagrees. He maintains that his notice that the State intended to seek his waiver to adult court and his participation in the ensuing proceedings is irrelevant, as the sixty-day requirement for the State to timely file its application is immutable, as clearly established in the statute. We agree with the State and conclude that the judge abused his discretion when he found that the State failed to establish good cause under the circumstances.
Rule 5:22-2(a) also establishes a sixty-day deadline for waiver of jurisdiction by the Family Part and...
To continue reading
Request your trial