STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. AMBER L. SPURLIN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEVEN J. KACZUR(14-01-0034 AND 12-12-1775, MIDDLESEX COUNTY ANDSTATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1921-15T1
A-3586-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMBER L. SPURLIN, a/k/a
LYNN A. SPURLIN,
Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEVEN J. KACZUR,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted June 1, 2017 – Decided June 21, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez, Manahan and Lisa.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment
Nos. 14-01-0034 (A-1921-15) and 12-12-1775 (A-
3586-15).
Andrew C. Carey, Middlesex County Prosecutor,
attorney for appellant (Jason Boudwin,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
Respondent Amber L. Spurlin has not filed a
brief.
The Maglione Firm, P.C., attorneys for
respondent Steven J. Kaczur (Dean R. Maglione,
of counsel; Lora B. Glick, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
These cases were calendared back-to-back, and we now
consolidate them for disposition in a single opinion. The two
cases involve identical sentencing issues dealing with the Graves
Act waiver provision, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, which authorizes a
prosecutor to move before the assignment judge for a waiver of the
minimum mandatory terms of imprisonment that are generally
required under the Graves Act pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c.
The crimes in both cases were second-degree crimes and were
committed in Middlesex County. In both cases, the prosecutor
moved before the assignment judge for a Graves Act waiver. The
assignment judge approved the waiver but did not determine which
of the two options available when a waiver is granted, namely,
reduction of the minimum mandatory term to one year or imposition
of a probationary sentence, should be imposed. He left that
determination to the sentencing judge.
2 A-1921-15T1
The matters in both cases went back before the same sentencing
judge, who imposed probationary terms for both defendants. The
State appealed, contending that these sentences were illegal
because the facts before the court in each case, as well as the
sentencing court's findings, only supported imposition of a prison
sentence of not less than three years, which would require, under
the waiver provision, a one year parole disqualifier as a component
of the sentence. The State argues that the sentencing judge erred
by failing to consider the criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1d to overcome the presumption of imprisonment for second-degree
offenders. Instead, he determined that the presumption of
imprisonment generally applicable to second-degree crimes did not
apply in the context of a Graves Act waiver.
We agree with the State that the presumption of imprisonment
for a second-degree offender set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1d must
be considered as a threshold matter in determining whether, in
approving a Graves Act waiver, a probationary sentence is
appropriate or whether a state prison sentence is required. In a
decision rendered on April 5, 2017, our Supreme Court so held.
State v. Nance, 228 N.J. 378 (2017). In that decision, the Court
also set forth the procedural steps that must be followed in
connection with the imposition of a sentence which includes a
3 A-1921-15T1
Graves Act waiver application. Those steps were not followed in
these cases.
Accordingly, on both procedural and substantive grounds, we
reverse the sentences in both cases and remand for resentencing.
I.
A.
Amber L. Spurlin pled guilty to second-degree unlawful
possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b. This is a Graves Act
offense, and ordinarily would require a State Prison sentence with
a minimum parole disqualifier of forty-two months pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State agreed
to seek a waiver of the forty-two month parole disqualifier
generally required and recommend reduction, under the waiver
provision, to one year of parole ineligibility. The State also
agreed to recommend that she be sentenced to a base term
appropriate to a crime one degree lower than the second-degree
crime for which she was convicted, as authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1f(2), specifically three years.
1
Spurlin's crime was committed on August 11, 2013. N.J.S.A.
2C:43-6c was amended by L. 2013, c. 113, § 2, effective August 8,
2013 to increase the minimum Graves Act parole disqualifier
generally required for second-degree crimes from three years to
forty-two months. Kaczur's crime was committed on November 6,
2010. Therefore, the Graves Act parole disqualifier generally
applicable to him was three years.
4 A-1921-15T1
The State moved before the assignment judge for approval of
the waiver. The assignment judge granted the State's motion but
did not decide which of the statutory alternatives, probation or
imprisonment with a reduction of the parole ineligibility term to
one year, should apply when sentencing defendant. Instead, the
assignment judge left that determination to the sentencing judge.
The sentencing judge found the applicability of two
aggravating factors, namely factors (3) the risk that defendant
would commit another offense, and (9) the need for deterrence.
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(3) and (9). The judge found the applicability
of four mitigating factors, namely factors (2) defendant did not
contemplate serious harm, (7) no prior history, (8) defendant's
conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur, and
(10) amenability to probationary treatment. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b(2),
(7), (8) and (10). The judge found that based upon a substantial
preponderance of mitigating factors the interest of justice would
be served by imposing a probationary sentence. He sentenced
Spurlin to three-years probation with a ten-day county jail
component. The judge stated that he had no objection to Spurlin's
probationary supervision being transferred to her home state of
Florida.
The judge rejected the State's argument that the serious
injustice criteria for overcoming the presumption of imprisonment
5 A-1921-15T1
for a second-degree crime, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1d, was required to be
found as a prerequisite to imposing a non-State Prison sentence.
As we previously stated, the judge was of the view that N.J.S.A.
2C:44-1d was not applicable because the Graves Act waiver provision
superseded it.
B.
Steven Kaczur pled guilty to second-degree possession of a
firearm while engaged in drug distribution activity, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-4.1. As in the Spurlin case, the State, by way of plea
agreement, agreed to move for a waiver of the mandatory Graves Act
parole disqualifier which, for Kaczur, would have been three years
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6c, and to recommend a sentence of
three-years imprisonment with a one-year parole disqualifier.
The State filed a waiver motion with the assignment judge.
As with Spurlin, the assignment judge approved the waiver but did
not choose which available option under the waiver provision should
apply, leaving that determination to the sentencing judge.
The matter went before the same sentencing judge who sentenced
Spurlin. The same arguments were made, and the judge again held
that the presumption of imprisonment provision did not apply in a
Graves Act waiver situation. The judge found the applicability
of aggravating factor (9) the need for deterrence, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1a(9). He found the applicability of mitigating factors (2)
6 A-1921-15T1
defendant did not contemplate serious harm, (7) lack of prior
record, (8) defendant's conduct not likely to recur, and (10)
amenability to probation. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b(2), (7), (8) and
(10). The judge found a substantial preponderance of mitigating
factors, thus justifying imposition of a probationary sentence.
He sentenced Kaczur to three-years probation with a seven-day
county jail component.
II.
The Graves Act waiver provision provides:
On a motion by the prosecutor made to the
assignment judge that the imposition of a
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment under
(a) subsection c. of [N.J.S.A.] 2C:43-6 for a
defendant who has not previously been
convicted of an offense under that subsection,
or (b) subsection e. of [N.J.S.A.] 2C:39-10
for a defendant who has not previously been
convicted of an offense under chapter 39 of
Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes, does not
serve the interests of justice, the assignment
judge shall place the defendant on probation
pursuant to [N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(2)] or reduce
to one year the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment during which the defendant will
be ineligible for parole. The sentencing
court may also refer a case of a defendant who
has not previously been convicted of an
offense under that subsection to the
assignment judge, with the approval of the
prosecutor, if the sentencing court believes
that the interests of justice would not be
served by the imposition of a mandatory
minimum term.
[N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2.]
7 A-1921-15T1
We first address the procedural issue implicated in these
appeals. In Nance, the Court made clear that only the assignment
judge (or his or her designee) possesses the authority under the
waiver provision to make the so-called "in-out" decision, that is,
whether in approving a waiver application, the defendant should
receive a State Prison sentence with a reduced period of parole
ineligibility of one year, or, alternatively, a probationary
sentence:
We first consider who—the assignment
judge or the sentencing judge—is authorized
by section 6.2 to determine whether the
defendant will be sentenced to a term of
probation or a term of incarceration with a
one-year period of parole ineligibility,
following the grant of a prosecutor's motion
for a waiver under section 6.2. The plain
language of section 6.2 reveals a clear
legislative intent that the assignment judge,
not the sentencing judge, has the statutory
authority to make such a determination.
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2.
When an application for a waiver under
section 6.2 is made by motion of a prosecutor,
the assignment judge or his or her designee
has the authority to choose one of two
sentences: he or she "shall place the
defendant on probation pursuant to [N.J.S.A.
2C:43-2(b)(2)] or reduce to one year the
mandatory minimum term of imprisonment during
which the defendant will be ineligible for
parole." Ibid. Although the prosecutor
retains the discretion to decide whether to
seek a Graves Act waiver in a given case, and
may argue in favor of a probationary term or
a custodial sentence with a one-year period
of ineligibility, nothing in the statute
8 A-1921-15T1
suggests that the assignment judge or designee
must accept the prosecutor's recommendation.
Ibid.
Nor does section 6.2 permit the
sentencing court to choose between the
statutory alternatives; the authority to elect
one of the two sentences set forth in section
6.2 is clearly vested in the assignment judge.
Ibid.
[Nance, supra, 228 N.J. at 393-94 (alteration
in original).]
In these cases, this procedure was not followed. Although
the assignment judge approved the waivers in both cases, he
expressly deferred to the sentencing judge the decision of which
available option to choose when fashioning the ultimate sentence.
This was error, and on remand, it is the assignment judge who must
make that initial determination.
This leads us to the substantive issue implicated in these
appeals. The State correctly argued before the sentencing judge
in both cases that in making the threshold decision when dealing
with a second-degree crime, the court must consider and apply the
presumption of imprisonment prescribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1d unless
the extremely rigorous criteria required to overcome that
presumption are met.
In Nance, the Supreme Court made this requirement abundantly
clear:
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) provides:
9 A-1921-15T1
The court shall deal with a person
who has been convicted of a crime
of the first or second degree . . .
by imposing a sentence of
imprisonment unless, having regard
to the character and condition of
the defendant, it is of the opinion
that his imprisonment would be a
serious injustice which overrides
the need to deter such conduct by
others.
"The 'serious injustice' exception to the
presumption of imprisonment applies only in
'truly extraordinary and unanticipated
circumstances,'" State v. Jabbour, 118 N.J.
1, 7 (1990) (quoting State v. Roth, 95 N.J.
334, 358 (1984)), "where the 'human cost' of
punishing a particular defendant to deter
others from committing his offense would be
'too great,'" State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355,
389 (2003) (quoting State v. Rivera, 124 N.J.
122, 125 (1991)). N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) thus
imposes a high standard that must be overcome
before a first or second-degree offender may
be sentenced to a non-custodial term.
When, as here, two related statutes are
relevant to the disposition of a matter, they
"should be read in pari materia and construed
together as a unitary and harmonious whole."
Nw. Bergen Cty. Utils. Auth. v. Donovan, 226
N.J. 432, 444 (2016) (quoting Saint Peter's
Univ. Hosp. v. Lacy, 185 N.J. 1, 15 (2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
. . . .
We construe section 6.2 and N.J.S.A.
2C:44-1(d) so as to harmonize the two
components of the Code's sentencing scheme.
Nothing in either provision suggests that a
Graves Act waiver exempts a defendant
convicted of a first or second-degree offense
10 A-1921-15T1
from the presumption of incarceration.
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) governs the sentencing of
any "person who has been convicted of a crime
of the first or second degree," with no
exception for defendants who are granted a
Graves Act waiver. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d).
Because one of the two alternative sentences
permitted under section 6.2 -- a custodial
term with a mandatory minimum of one year --
constitutes a "sentence of imprisonment"
within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d), an
assignment judge or designee may comply with
section 6.2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) at once.
By considering the standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-
1(d) in deciding between the probationary and
custodial sentences authorized by section 6.2,
an assignment judge or presiding judge [acting
as an assignment judge's designee] achieves
the legislative objectives of both provisions.
[Id. at 395-96.]
In these cases, the sentencing judge declined to consider the
serious injustice standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1d, and the
assignment judge was of the view that it was not his role to
consider it. On remand, the assignment judge, or his designee,
must consider this issue and set forth the basis upon which he
decides that the standard for overcoming the presumption of
imprisonment has or has not been met. After the assignment judge
makes the threshold choice between the two waiver options, "[t]he
sentencing court's task is to devise a sentence that comports with
the assignment judge's ruling and the sentencing provisions of the
Code." Id. at 394.
11 A-1921-15T1
The sentences in these cases are reversed and the matters are
remanded for resentencing in accordance with the procedural and
substantive requirements described in this opinion and set forth
with greater particularity in Nance. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
12 A-1921-15T1