STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ASHLEY GEORGES(00-04-1057, 00-06-1768 AND 01-05-2180, ESSEXCOUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0612-15T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ASHLEY GEORGES,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted June 21, 2017 — Decided August 11, 2017
Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment Nos.
00-04-1057, 00-06-1768, 01-05-2180.
Ashley Georges, appellant pro se.
Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Andrew R.
Burroughs, Special Deputy Attorney General/
Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Inmate Ashley Georges, who is serving a life sentence with a
thirty-year mandatory minimum term, appeals from a June 29, 2015
order denying his motion to vacate fines. We reverse and remand
to the Department of Corrections (DOC) to recalculate defendant's
current financial obligation, if any, in conformity with the
State's concession.
Defendant raises the following issue on appeal:
POINT I: APPELLANT APPEALS THE DENIAL OF HIS
MOTION TO REVOKE AND REFUND FINES
INAPPROPRIATELY TAKEN FROM HIS PRISON ACCOUNT
FOR FINES THAT EXCEED THE SENTENCING JUDGE'S
AMOUNT IMPOSED AND IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE JUDGE'S TIME AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
IMPOSED.
Defendant argues that the sentencing court ordered the fines
and penalties to be paid through parole and therefore the money
should not have been deducted from his inmate account. This
argument is without sufficient merit to discuss in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). He also argues that the DOC did not
properly calculate the money he owed from various convictions.
The State concedes that the sums owed were miscalculated. It
notes that defendant's convictions in 2000 for drug and gun
offenses were overturned on double jeopardy grounds, thus negating
any financial penalties incurred. State v. Georges, 345 N.J.
Super. 538, 548 (App. Div. 2001). It notes also that the motion
judge reduced the Drug Enforcement and Demand Reduction (DEDR)
penalty, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-15, for Indictment 01-05-2180 by $500.
2 A-0612-15T4
After reviewing defendant's criminal history and money assessed
and paid beginning in 1996, the State writes:1
Contrary to the DOC payment record, the
aggregate amount owed is $3894.00. DOC
payment records show that defendant . . . paid
$3,307.96 as of March 7, 2015. Thus, as of
March 7, 2015, defendant's outstanding balance
should read $589.04.
The State recommends that we remand to the DOC to conduct a
thorough audit of defendant's account including the "carry forward
balance" of $3618.50 to the DOC "new system." Pending such an
audit, we direct the DOC to recalculate defendant's debt, assuming
he owed $589.04 as of March 7, 2015, as calculated by the State.
Any overpayments should be returned to defendant's account.
Reversed and remanded to the DOC. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
1
We appreciate the State's diligence in reviewing defendant's
inmate account.
3 A-0612-15T4