Drug Addicted Defendants No Longer Denied Admission To Drug Court For Weapons Charges

Over the rejection of the prosecution, Gregory Maurer sought entry into Drug Court while under separate indictments for (1) third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (ocycodone) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); (2) two counts of third-degree possession of CDS (oxycodone and heroin) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-(a)(1)); (3) third-degree possession of CDS (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); and (4) two counts of third degree theft by unlawful taking (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a)) and third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1)). The prosecutor’s denial was based solely on Maurer’s prior charge for possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)) and hollow point bullets. The trial court made its decision based on the defendant’s prior conviction for a weapons related offense and Maurer appealed. In State v. Maurer, the NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant’s record, the “Manual for Operation of Adult Drug Courts In New Jersey” (July 2002)(Manual) and the Drug Court Statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14). The NJ Appellate Division did consider that Maurer had also been charged with witness tampering (N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5) and other prior CDS charges which were remanded to the respective municipal courts for disposition. They also considered Maurer’s participation in Narcotics Anonymous and other substance abuse counseling programs as well as his employment as an outreach counselor at a rehabilitation facility. The NJ Appellate Division considered that Drug Court is appropriate for “offenders most likely to benefit from treatment and do not pose a risk to public safety.” State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421, 428-29 (2007) (quoting Manual, Supra, at 3). The opinion also included a thorough review of Drug Court success rates and the Legislative intent to end the cycle of drug offenders interacting with the criminal justice system as a result of addiction. State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533, (App. Div.), 216 N.J. 14 (2013). There was also discussion of a two “track” system wherein, according to the Manual, a criminal history involving a firearm acts as a bar to admission in spite of the apparent Legislative intent to increase Drug Court access for those likely to benefit from resolving addiction issues. The Court resolved that an amendment to the Track Two admission criteria was required and remanded the matter for consideration of the defendant’s application to Drug Court despite his prior weapons offense. If you are facing distribution or possession charges, there are many factors which may affect how your case is ultimately resolved. You should immediately retain experienced criminal defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, weapons offenses or other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Distribution of Drugs in a School-Zone May Not Bar Drug Court

In a recent case involving 3rd degree distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), marijuana, in a school zone a defendant was denied admission into the Drug Court program and appealed. Mike Pope appealed the decision of the Sussex County Superior Court Judge based on the misapplication of the standard for ordinary probation to deny him entry into Drug Court, based on a school-zone offense, while N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 allows school-zone offenders to be sentenced to Drug Court probation. The statute permitting entry into Drug Court applies as long as the transaction occurring within the school-zone does not involve distribution to a minor. Mark Pope pled guilty to distribution in the parking lot of Vernon High School under a negotiated settlement agreement which contemplated defendant's intent to apply to Drug Court. The Sussex County prosecutor argued that Pope's violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, involving distribution within 1000 feet of a school-zone, served as an automatic bar to defendant's entry into Drug Court. Defendant's appeal, in State v. Pope, asked the NJ Appellate Division to reconsider Pope's application to Drug Court based on the requirements of track 1 or 2 for admission. Track 1 being the commission of a crime subject to a presumption of mandatory incarceration and the satisfaction of 9 factors. Typically this is reserved for 1st or 2nd degree crimes and is done with the consent of the prosecutor. Track 2 is typically applied to those with ongoing drug habits who have not committed any form of violent offense. The NJ Appellate Judges held that the trial court misapplied the statute and remanded the matter for consideration under the appropriate criteria. A drug related conviction in NJ can have serious and lasting consequences including prison, loss of license, substantial fines and the stigma of the conviction or plea can result in the loss of certain employment or educational opportunities. If you are facing charges of use, possession or distribution of CDS including marijuana, meth, oxy, heroin, xanax or other drugs, it is critical you consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about prescription or non-prescription drug charges for use possession or distribution, gang-related drug charges, controlled dangerous substances in a motor vehicle, DUI and other criminal and serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.