State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 16 January 1976
• Citation: 351 A.2d 371,138 N.J.Super. 431
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harry Wayne JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 431

138 N.J.Super. 431

351 A.2d 371

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Harry Wayne JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Submitted Dec. 16, 1975.

Decided Jan. 16, 1976.

Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, for defendant-appellant (Allen L. Shulman, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent (Susan G. Rivkind, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges KOLOVSKY, BISCHOFF and BOTTER.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal defendant contends that he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain and that the sentence imposed is excessive. Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny from the person and a charge of aiding and abetting a larceny from the person. N.J.S.A. 2A:119--1 and N.J.S.A. 2A:85--14. The offenses were committed on April 30, 1974 and May 14, 1974. As consideration for the guilty pleas the prosecutor recommended that, if custodial sentences were imposed, they should be concurrent indeterminate terms at the Youth Correctional Institution Complex (Youth Complex).

Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent indeterminate terms at the Youth Complex. As authorized by N.J.S.A. 30:4--148, the trial judge fixed the maximum term of seven years for each sentence in place of the statutory five-year maximum. Defendant now contends that 'an indeterminate sentence to Yardville' is commonly understood to refer to 'an indeterminate term with the usual five year maximum.' He contends that the reasonable expectation of defendants and their counsel should be fulfilled, and in this case defendant was denied substantial justice.

N.J.S.A. 30:4--148 provides that the duration of a sentence to the Youth Complex shall not be fixed or limited by the sentencing judge, but the time served in confinement or on parole shall not exceed five years (or a lesser period where the crime carries a lower mzximum), provided that 'the court, in its discretion, for good cause shown, may impose a sentence greater than five (5) years, but in no case greater than the maximum provided by law * * *.' Of course, '(t)he term may be terminated by the board of managers' at any time according to its own rules and regulations. Id. In fact, State v. Carroll, 66 N.J. 558, 562--563, 334 A.2d 17 (1975), directs that, even in the case of consecutive indeterminate sentences, an inmate cannot be made to serve 'additional time on the second sentence once the board of trustees determines that he has achieved a satisfactory degree of rehabilitation suitable for release.'

The terms of a plea agreement (or plea bargain, as it is commonly called) should be meticulously honored by a sentencing judge (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971)), and a defendant should be accorded his 'reasonable expectations.' State v. Thomas, 61 N.J. 314, 322, 294 A.2d 57 (1972). However, we cannot say that This defendant's expectations were frustrated, looking at the record before us. When the plea was entered defendant acknowledged that he understood the offense carried a maximum potential sentence of seven years or $2,000 fine, or both. ¹ Despite this reference to a maximum higher than five years, no mention was made by counsel or defendant at the time the guilty pleas were entered of their understanding or expectation that the five-year maximum on an indeterminate term would not be enlarged. More persuasive is the fact that, 18 days later, at the time of sentencing, neither defendant nor defense counsel protested that the sentence violated defendant's expectations. Accordingly, we conclude that the sentence imposed conformed literally to the plea agreement and was not unauthorized or unjust.

As noted above, even in the exceptional case where consecutive indeterminate sentences are imposed, a defendant cannot be made to serve 'additional time' if the board of managers determines that defendant is suitable for release. State v. Carroll, supra, 66 N.J. at...