STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH COLEMAN (18-11-0646, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1275-20
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Submitted April 14, 2021 – Decided May 5, 2021
Before Judges Ostrer and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 18-11-0646.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Haley E. Farrell, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney
for respondent (Randolph Mershon III, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Joseph Coleman appeals from a November 30, 2020 order
denying his Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion for release due to an illness or infirmity.
We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the cogent and thoughtful
opinion of Judge Janetta D. Marbrey.
Defendant previously was indicted for second degree criminal attempt to
commit sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C: 14-2(c)(4) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1(a)(1), and
second-degree luring, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6(a). He pled guilty to the latter charge
and was sentenced in March 2019 to a six-year prison term, subject to a three-
year period of parole ineligibility, compliance with the registration requirements
of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2, and parole supervision for life.
On November 7, 2020, defendant moved for release pursuant to Rule 3:21-
10(b)(2), claiming he suffered from clinical obesity and hypertension.
Defendant asserted his health issues placed him at a greater risk of complications
if he contracted Covid-19. Judge Marbrey denied his motion, concluding that
although defendant established a change in circumstances supporting his
application, he presented insufficient evidence to justify his release based on the
factors set forth in State v. Priester, 99 N.J. 123 (1985). 1 She specifically found
1
Such factors include the "nature and severity of the crime, the severity of the
sentence, the criminal record of the defendant, the risk to the public if the
2 A-1275-20
defendant did not offer proof his health conditions were "sufficiently 'dire' to
warrant 'extraordinary relief' under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2)," as he did not claim his
medical condition was "rapidly deteriorating." Instead, he simply argued he was
"vulnerable to serious medical complications" if he were to contract Covid-19.
The judge also noted defendant did "not contend that treatment [for his
conditions] is ineffective or that his condition is being ignored." In fact, he
conceded his "health conditions have been treated and stabilized through
medication during his incarceration period." Moreover, the judge noted the
crime to which defendant pled guilty was serious and the risk to the public if
defendant was released was "high."
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments:
POINT I
APPELLANT HAS MET THE LEGAL STANDARD
FOR RELEASE UNDER STATE V. PRIESTER,
HAVING SHOWN THE DELETERIOUS EFFECT
INCARCERATION HAS ON HIS HEALTH, DUE TO
HIS UNDERLYING MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND
THE ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
A. THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC AMOUNTS TO A
CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER
RULE 3:21-10(B)(2) AND STATE V.
PRIESTER.
defendant is released, and the defendant's role in bringing about his current state
of health." Priester, 99 N.J. at 137.
3 A-1275-20
B. COLEMAN HAS PROVIDED "CLEAR"
PROOF OF HIS INFIRMITY, AS WELL AS
THE [SERIOUS] AND INCREASED RISK DUE
TO COVID-19.
C. COLEMAN HAS DEMONSTRATED THE
DELETERIOUS EFFECT OF
INCARCERATION ON HIS HEALTH DURING
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
D. COLEMAN IS A NONVIOLENT OFFENDER
WHOSE ALLEGED RISK TO THE
COMMUNITY MUST BE BALANCED
AGAINST BOTH THE RISK TO HIS HEALTH
AND HIS INSTITUTIONAL SUCCESS.
Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) provides "[a] motion may be filed and an order may
be entered at any time . . . amending a custodial sentence to permit the release
of a defendant because of illness or infirmity of the defendant[.]" A motion for
relief under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) "is committed to the sound discretion of the
court." Priester, 99 N.J. at 135 (citing State v. Tumminello, 70 N.J. 187, 193
(1976)). Therefore, we will only reverse if a trial judge relies on an
"impermissible basis," considers irrelevant factors, or makes a clear error in
judgment. State v. S.N., 231 N.J. 497, 500 (2018).
In Priester our Supreme Court stated:
The predicate for relief under . . . [Rule 3:21-10(b)(2)]
is proof of the serious nature of the defendant's illness
and the deleterious effect of incarceration on the
prisoner's health. As proof of the devastating effect of
4 A-1275-20
prison life on a defendant's health, the court should
consider the availability of medical services in prison,
including rehabilitative therapy. However, this factor
is important only insofar as it tends to establish that
without such medical services the defendant's condition
will seriously worsen or deteriorate in prison. It is the
existence of this serious threat to defendant's physical
condition, rather than the prison system's ability to
provide beneficial and desirable medical services,
including rehabilitative health care, that is
determinative of a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion.
Therefore, in order to prevail, the prisoner must show
that the medical services unavailable at the prison
would be not only beneficial . . . but are essential to
prevent further deterioration in his health . . . .
Moreover, a prisoner also must show that changed
circumstances in his health have occurred since the
time of the original sentence.
....
In addition to the requirement of a change of
circumstances, among other factors we deem relevant
to the determination of a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion are
the nature and severity of the crime, the severity of the
sentence, the criminal record of the defendant, the risk
to the public if the defendant is released, and the
defendant's role in bringing about his current state of
health.
[99 N.J. at 135-37.]
Based on these principles, we have no reason to second-guess Judge
Marbrey's application of the Priester factors. Our review of the record convinces
us she properly found defendant failed to establish that either his medical
5 A-1275-20
condition or need for treatment warranted release. Additionally, her conclusion
that defendant's sentence, the severity of his criminal record, and the
concomitant risk to the public militated against his release, was not an abuse of
discretion.
To the extent we have not addressed defendant's remaining arguments, we
find they lack merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
6 A-1275-20