STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM JENKINS, JR. (19-03-0275, BERGEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1328-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM JENKINS, JR.,
a/k/a MOB JENKINS,
WILLIAM JENKINS,
WILLIAM JR, WILLIAM H.
JENKINS, WILLIAM H.
KENKINS, and MO
WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted October 12, 2021 – Decided October 27, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 19-03-0275.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Stefan Van Jura, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for
respondent (William P. Miller, Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant William Jenkins, Jr. appeals from an October 28, 2019
judgment of conviction entered after a guilty plea. His appeal focuses on two
issues. First, defendant's challenges the April 22, 2019 order granting the State's
application to extend the 180-day time limit under the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act (IAD), N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1 to -15. Second, he challenges the
sentenced imposed. We affirm.
On June 25, 2018, defendant assaulted a victim in Bergen County and the
victim subsequently died. After the New Jersey assault, defendant was arrested
in New York on a parole violation related to a New York conviction. On June
27, 2018, the State charged defendant with manslaughter and other charges
related to the death of the victim in Bergen County. Defendant pleaded guilty
to a violation of parole in the New York matter on July 31, 2018 and was
remanded to prison in New York.
On November 8, 2018, defendant filed a request for disposition under the
IAD, requiring the New Jersey charges be resolved within 180 days. The 180-
day period would expire on May 7, 2019. Defendant was transferred to New
A-1328-19
2
Jersey on December 19, 2018. A Bergen County grand jury indicted defendant
on March 1, 2019.
Pursuant to the IAD, in March 2019, the State requested a ninety-day
extension of the 180-day detainer period. In an April 22, 2019 order, the judge
granted the State's request for an extension. The judge found the State
demonstrated good cause based on outstanding discovery despite the State's
diligent efforts to complete discovery, the State's need for additional time to
prepare for trial, and the coordinating and booking of travel arrangements for
numerous trial witnesses on behalf of the State. The judge set September 17,
2019 as the new trial date.
Prior to the rescheduled trial date, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
certain charges in the indictment. The judge denied dismissal of Count One,
aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1), and Count Two, hindering
apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29:3(b)(1). With the State's consent, the judge
dismissed Count Three, disturbing human remains, N.J.S.A. 2C:22-1(b).
After denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, defendant pleaded
guilty to Count One, as amended to second-degree reckless manslaughter,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). The State agreed to dismiss all remaining counts and
recommended defendant be sentenced to ten years' imprisonment to run
A-1328-19
3
concurrent to the sentence imposed as a result of his violation of the conditions
of parole in New York. As part of the negotiated plea, defendant preserved the
right to appeal the order extending the IAD time period.
The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement
to ten years of imprisonment with eighty-five percent parole ineligibility.
During the sentencing hearing, the judge found aggravating factors three, six,
and nine and no mitigating factors. 1
On appeal, defendant raises the following arguments.
POINT I
THE CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE VACATED AND
THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED
BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO
DEMONSTRATE "GOOD CAUSE" FOR A
CONTINUANCE UNDER THE INTERSTATE
AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS.
POINT II
THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL SENTENCE FOR TEN
YEARS WITH AN 85% PERIOD OF PAROLE
INELIGIBILITY IS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE,
UNDULY PUNITIVE, AND MUST BE REDUCED.
1
While the sentencing judge discussed aggravating factor nine during the
hearing, this factor was not included in the signed judgment of conviction.
A-1328-19
4
We first consider defendant's argument the State failed to demonstrate
good cause in support of continuance under the IAD. We disagree.
Under the IAD, where a party demonstrates good cause, the trial court
judge "may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance." N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-
3. We analyze good cause for a continuance under the IAD for abuse of
discretion. See State v. Buhl, 269 N.J. Super. 344, 356 (App. Div. 1994).
While the sentencing judge discussed aggravating factor nine during the
hearing, this factor was not incorporated into the Judgment of Conviction.
The purpose of the IAD "is 'to encourage the expeditious and orderly
disposition of such [outstanding] charges and determinations of the proper status
of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations or
complaints' and to provide 'cooperative procedures' for making such
determinations." State v. Perry, 430 N.J. Super. 419, 424-25 (App. Div. 2013)
(quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-1). The prosecutor is required to proceed to trial
within 180 days of written notice of the defendant's current place of
imprisonment and his request for a final disposition. N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-3(a).
The 180 days may be extended for "good cause." Ibid.The IAD does not define the term "good cause." See Ghandi v. Cespedes,
390 N.J. Super. 193, 196 (App. Div. 2007). Rather, "the question of whether
A-1328-19
5
good cause exists for a continuance must be resolved from a consideration of
the totality of circumstances in the particular case, on the background of t he
considerations which motivated the interstate agreement, as expressed in N.J.S.
2A:159A-1." State v. Johnson, 188 N.J. Super. 416, 421 (App. Div. 1982)
(quoting State v. Lippolis, 107 N.J. Super. 137, 148-49 (App. Div. 1969)
(dissenting opinion), rev'd on dissent, 55 N.J. 354 (1970)).
Here, defendant was arrested for a parole violation in New York on June
25, 2018. The Bergen County Prosecutor's Office received written notice
triggering the computation of time under IAD on November 8, 2018. Thus, the
State was required to prosecute the case against defendant by May 7, 2019.
In March 2019, the State requested a ninety-day extension of time under
the IAD. The State provided several reasons in support of the requested
extension. First, the State noted substantial discovery remained outstanding.
The State explained there were many police reports to be completed, transcripts
of the grand jury proceedings were not finished, and an evaluation of forensic
evidence pertaining to defendant's electronic devices remained ongoing. In
addition, the State required more time to coordinate witness schedules and attend
to travel arrangements for the New York State detectives and others who would
testify at trial.
A-1328-19
6
After reviewing the written and oral arguments of counsel, the judge
granted the State's request for a ninety-day continuance. He found the matter
was "a complex case in the sense that it was a homicide." The judge explained,
based on a totality of the circumstances . . . the State is
entitled, has made out good cause, namely the police
reports involved are voluminous. We have multi and
out-of-state detectives from up New York State. . . .
we're waiting for lab results which may or may not be
relevant, but nevertheless have not been received by the
State. And the State is not asking for a lengthy
extension, nor would this [c]ourt grant one.
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the State established good
cause for a continuance based on the totality of the circumstances and the judge
did not abuse his discretion in granting a ninety-day extension under the IAD.
Based on the information presented to the judge, the continuance did not
undermine the purpose of the IAD, and the State was "working diligently" to
proceed to trial.
We next review defendant's argument his sentence was manifestly
excessive, unduly punitive, and should be reduced. Again, we disagree.
We review a trial judge's sentence for abuse of discretion. State v. Jones,
232 N.J. 308, 318 (2018). "The reviewing court must not substitute its judgment
for that of the sentencing court." State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014). We
will affirm a trial court sentence, unless: "(1) the sentencing guidelines were
A-1328-19
7
violated; (2) the findings of aggravating and mitigating factors were not 'based
upon competent credible evidence in the record;' or (3) 'the application of the
guidelines to the facts' of the case 'shock[s] the judicial conscience.'" State v.
Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364-65
(1984)).
"A sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement is presumed to be
reasonable because a defendant voluntarily '[waived] . . . his rights to a trial in
return for the reduction or dismissal of certain charges, recommendations as to
sentence and the like.'" Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70-71 (quoting State v. Davis, 175
N.J. Super. 130, 140 (App. Div. 1980)). A sentence recommended as part of a
plea bargain may be "vacated if it does not comport with the sentencing
provisions of our Code of Criminal Justice." Id. at 71.
Here, the sentencing judge considered the aggravating and mitigating
factors in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The judge found
aggravating factor three, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), defendant's risk of committing
another offense; aggravating factor six, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(6), the extent and
seriousness of defendant's prior criminal record; and aggravating factor nine,
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(9), the need to deter defendant and others from violating
the law. In addition, the judge found no mitigating factors.
A-1328-19
8
The judge explained his reasoning in support of his application and
rejection of the various aggravating and mitigating factors. The judge exercised
his discretion appropriately in assigning weight to the aggravating factors based
on his review of the factual record and defendant's prior criminal history. There
is sufficient support in the record for application of aggravating factors three,
six, and nine and rejection of all statutory mitigating factors. In addition, the
sentence conformed to the plea agreement. Further, the ten-year sentence
imposed was within the range for reckless manslaughter, and less severe than
might otherwise have been imposed had defendant gone to trial and been
convicted.
Affirmed.
A-1328-19
9