STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RONY CHERY STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JERRY TYRE STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OMAR WILLIAMS (13001984-001, 16-05-0719 AND 16-08-1124, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 NOS. A-0200-18T4
A-1220-18T4
A-1681-18T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RONY CHERY,
Defendant,
and
INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JERRY TYRE,
Defendant,
and
ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
OMAR WILLIAMS,
Defendant,
and
ALLEGHENY CASUALTY CO.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted September 17, 2019 – Decided November 20, 2019
Before Judges Fisher, Accurso and Gilson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Hudson County, Indictment Nos. 13001984-
001, 16-05-0719 and 16-08-1124.
Richard P. Blender, attorney for appellants.
Chasan Lamparello Mallon & Cappuzzo, PC, attorneys
for respondent (Maria P. Vallejo, of counsel and on the
brief).
A-0200-18T4
2
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, sureties that posted bail for the defendants
in these criminal cases – prior to the 2017 amendments to Rule 3:26-6 and the
revised bail remission guidelines ("revised guidelines") – argue in a single point
that the trial court erred by applying the revised guidelines and "in not applying
the bail forfeiture guidelines . . . in existence at the time the bails were written."
Stated another way, the sureties argue that the revised guidelines should not have
been applied retroactively because "it is patently unconscionable to allow one
party to the bail-recognizance contract, the State-creditor, to alter the most
essential component of the bail contract . . . than was originally agreed upon
when the contract was first entered into." The sureties argue as well that
application of the revised guidelines violates the Contracts Clause of the United
States Constitution, U.S. Const., Art. I, § 10, and that the revised guidelines are
inconsistent with their stated purpose of "simplify[ing] and streamlin[ing] the
process for handling applications to set aside or remit bail forfeiture."
We recently rejected these and other similar challenges to the revised
guidelines in ABC Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Grant, 459 N.J. Super. 340, 348 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, __ N.J. __ (Nov. 4, 2019), where we held that the revised
guidelines should be applied "retroactively" because they are "procedural, not
A-0200-18T4
3
substantive[,]" "not unconstitutional[,]" "not an unlawful exercise of the Court's
supervisory authority," and do "not constitute a material change to existing
contracts." For these same reasons, we conclude that the sureties' arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in another written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
The orders under review in these appeals are affirmed.
A-0200-18T4
4