State v. Cambrelen

• Citation: 473 N.J.Super. 70,278 A.3d 814
• Decision Date: 24 June 2022
• Docket Number: DOCKET NO. A-1008-20
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jaime CAMBRELEN, a/k/a Jaime J. Cambrelen, and Jaime Cambrelene, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

473 N.J.Super. 70

278 A.3d 814

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Jaime CAMBRELEN, a/k/a Jaime J. Cambrelen, and Jaime Cambrelene, Defendant-Appellant.

DOCKET NO. A-1008-20

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued May 31, 2022

Decided June 24, 2022

Al Glimis, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Al Glimis, on the brief).

John J. Santoliquido, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Cary S. Shill, Acting Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney; John J. Santoliquido, of counsel and on the brief).

Barry H. Evenchick, Hackensack, argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, PC, attorneys; Barry H. Evenchick, of counsel and on the brief; Joshua P. Law, on the brief).

Carol M. Henderson, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Carol M. Henderson, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Messano, Rose and Enright.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ROSE, J.A.D.

In this appeal, we consider the propriety of a negotiated plea agreement provision, permitting the State to revoke its sentencing recommendation if the defendant is arrested on new charges that are not adjudicated prior to sentencing. Because we conclude a no-new-arrest or no-new-charges provision violates a defendant's right to due process and is fundamentally unfair, we vacate defendant's conviction and remand the matter to allow the parties to negotiate a new plea agreement or permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Our decision has no bearing, however, on those plea agreement provisions that limit the State's right to revoke its sentencing recommendation or recommend a harsher sentence if a defendant fails to appear at sentencing, provided the defendant is afforded a fair hearing pursuant to established case law.

I.

In August 2020, while detained pretrial, defendant Jaime Cambrelen pled guilty to first-degree unlawful possession of a handgun by a person previously convicted of a NERA¹ crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j), charged in a twenty-three count Atlantic County indictment. The same indictment charged three co-defendants with various offenses arising from the shooting death of Bernard Murphy. Defendant was not charged with homicide-related offenses.²

During his plea allocution, defendant admitted he "c[a]me into possession of a handgun" on October 17, 2019, on Florida Avenue in Atlantic City, when he "picked it off the ground."³ Defendant acknowledged he did not have a permit to carry the handgun and previously had been convicted of second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), a NERA offense. Defendant also waived his rights to indictment and trial by jury, and pled guilty to Atlantic County Accusation No. 20-08-0539, charging him with fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), for possessing a shank while in jail pending trial.

In exchange for defendant's guilty pleas, the State made the following sentencing recommendation, reflected in paragraph 13 of the plea form:

Aggregate sentence of 10 years in prison must serve 42 months without parole, Ind[ictment No.] 20-01-00031; 10 years in prison must serve 42 months without parole (Graves)^[4] concurrent to Acc[usation No.] 20-08-00539; 18 months in prison. Truthful testimony. Waive right to appeal, R. 3:9-3(d). Bail and detention continued. No show, no rec[ommendation]. New charges, no rec[ommendation]. Forfeit weapons and property seized. State to move for extended term sentence.

[(Emphasis added).]

Paragraph 21 of the plea form sets forth the remainder of the parties’ representations:

Defendant to argue for 8 years in prison[;] must serve 42 months w[ith]o[ut] parole. State does not agree to sentence a degree lower.^[5]

Defendant to move to reopen detention hearing and for release[.] R. 3:4A(b)(3). State opposes motion.

During the plea hearing, the trial court explained the ramifications if defendant failed to appear at sentencing or was arrested on new charges while he was released from jail:

Now, the State is going to move for an extended term. And I will consider that motion, of course, as any motion that's presented. But the real exposure you have on such a motion is that if you fail to come back on the date I give you for sentencing, or if you come back having incurred new charges, then the State can indict you for whatever new charges you may have incurred. You could be sentenced by me in my discretion, which could include granting the State's motion for an extended term. You'd face then up to the term of your natural life for the most serious offense here.

So, if you want the recommendation here, and any opportunity for more lenient treatment, you'll be on time and out of trouble.

Defendant acknowledged his understanding of the terms of the plea agreement. The court released defendant from custody for a thirty-day period "to allow him to make arrangements for his affairs" before serving his prison sentence, and imposed several conditions of release, including that defendant "commit no new offenses." The court reiterated the impact of violating a condition of his release or committing a new offense; defendant again acknowledged his understanding of the potential ramifications. He was released from jail, pending the September 24, 2020 sentencing date.

On September 22, 2020, two days before his scheduled sentencing, defendant was arrested and charged with multiple drug and weapons offenses, including first-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(1). The charges arose from a motor vehicle stop in Atlantic City.

According to the affidavit of probable cause supporting the complaint-warrant, defendant was lying in the rear seat when the car was stopped. The driver did not possess a valid driver's license and could not provide police with the name of the owner. Police observed the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle, and a clear plastic baggie containing what appeared to be crack cocaine in the center console cup holder.⁶ A search of the car yielded a handgun in the glove compartment and large quantities of drugs in the trunk.

A Law Division judge, who was not the sentencing judge, granted the State's motion for pretrial detention, finding probable cause based on the officer's affidavit and police report. Defendant consented to detention.

After defendant's September 22, 2020 arrest, the State withdrew its sentencing recommendation, moved for a discretionary extended term as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), on the first-degree weapons offense, and argued for a twenty-year prison sentence with a parole disqualifier of ten years under the Graves Act. Maintaining his innocence on the "constructive possession-type" new charges, defendant opposed the State's motion and moved for sentencing in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement.

Following argument at the October 26, 2020 sentencing hearing, the trial court first determined defendant's arrest on new charges violated the terms of the plea agreement, and permitted the State to withdraw its sentencing recommendation. Although the court recognized "defendant [wa]s merely charged" and "maintain[ed] his innocence on those charges," the court found "probable cause to believe that [defendant] committed those offenses based on the complaint-warrant, his current status, and detention on those charges."

The trial court also determined the State satisfied the conditions of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), and granted the State's motion for an extended term on the first-degree weapons offense. Finding aggravating factors three, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3) (risk that defendant will re-offend); six, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(6) (extent and seriousness of defendant's prior record); and nine, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9) (general and specific deterrence), "clearly and substantially preponderate[d] over the absence of mitigating factors," the court sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of sixteen years with an eight-year parole disqualifier. Citing State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 902 A.2d 1195 (2006), the court was satisfied, "given the defendant's relative youth here, [and] the nature of his prior record that sentencing in the midrange of the ordinary term would be appropriate to effectively deter this defendant."⁷

Defendant filed a direct appeal of his sentence, which this court heard on an excessive sentencing calendar pursuant to Rule 2:9-11. Thereafter, we ordered full briefing and placement on a plenary calendar. State v. Cambrelen, No. A-1008-20 (App. Div. June. 7, 2021).

Defendant now seeks a remand for resentencing to a ten-year prison term with a forty-two-month parole disqualifier pursuant to the State's original recommendation. Defendant also argues his sentence is excessive because it was increased substantially based on an unadjudicated arrest, and because the court double counted defendant's aggravated assault conviction. More particularly, he raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY VACATING THE BARGAINED-FOR SENTENCE AND INCREASING DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE BECAUSE OF A NEW CHARGE. THE SENTENCING PROCEDURE WAS CONTRARY TO CASE LAW, VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND WAS CONTRARY TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. ( U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV ; N.J. CONST. ART. I, [¶] 1).

A. Case [L]aw does not Allow a Sentence to be Increased Based on a Mere Arrest.

B. The Increase in Defendant's Sentence Because of his Arrest Violated his Due Process Rights and was Contrary to the Presumption of Innocence and Fundamental Fairness.

POINT II

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS EXCESSIVE, CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND DOUBLE COUNTED AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE. THE MATTER MUST BE REMANDED FOR

...