STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TEVIN M. FIGARO STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY J. GREEN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ABE HAROLD (17-05-0465, 17-10-0945, 17-10-0961, 19-03-0275, 19-04-0318, AND 16-09-0824, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NOS. A-5654-18T4
A-0854-19T4
A-1287-19T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
v.
February 25, 2020
TEVIN M. FIGARO, APPELLATE DIVISION
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTHONY J. GREEN, a/k/a
ANTHONY MCFARLAND,
and ANTHONY J. JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ABE HAROLD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Argued January 27, 2020 – Decided February 25, 2020
Before Judges Messano, Ostrer and Vernoia.
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland
County, Indictment Nos. 17-05-0465, 17-10-0945, 17-
10-0961, 19-03-0275, and 19-04-0318, and
Accusation No. 16-09-0824.
Stephen P. Hunter, Deputy Public Defender, argued
the cause for appellants Tevin M. Figaro, Abe Harold,
and Anthony Green (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; Stephen P. Hunter, of counsel and
on the briefs).
Jasmine L. S. Dobosiewicz Ostrow, Assistant
Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer
Webb-McRae, Cumberland County Prosecutor,
attorney; Jasmine L. S. Dobosiewicz Ostrow, of
counsel and on the briefs).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MESSANO, P.J.A.D.
First in State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421, 431–33 (2007), again in State v.
Clarke, 203 N.J. 166, 174–77 (2010), and most recently in State v. Hyland,
238 N.J. 135, 144 n.3 (2019), the Court plainly held that there are two tracks
available for entry into our Drug Courts. Track One is available to those
eligible for special probation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a), and who
otherwise satisfy the statutory criteria. See Hyland, 238 N.J. at 144; Clarke,
A-5654-18T4
2
203 N.J. at 175; Meyer, 192 N.J. at 431–32. Track Two "permits applicants to
be admitted into Drug Court 'under the general sentencing provisions of the
Code of Criminal Justice.'" Clarke, 203 N.J. at 175 (quoting Meyer, 192 N.J.
at 432). "N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 does not establish and indeed does not even
mention Drug Courts." Meyer, 192 N.J. at 428. Rather, "Drug Courts are a
creature of the judiciary[,]" and, as such, are "subject to the constitutional
purview of [the Supreme] Court, which executes its policies through the
Administrative Office of the Courts [(AOC)]." Id. at 430; see also, In re
Application of Carlstrom, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op. at 13) ("[An
AOC] Directive is an expression of [the] Court's constitutionally granted rule-
making authority over all state courts.").
The AOC issued the first Drug Court Manual in 2002 "to implement
'uniform statewide eligibility criteria' to ensure equitable operation of the Drug
Court program throughout the State." Meyer, 192 N.J. at 431 (citing
Administrative Office of the Courts, "Manual for Operation of Adult Drug
Courts in New Jersey" (July 2002) (the 2002 Manual)). The AOC revised the
2002 Manual in 2019, Administrative Office of the Courts, "New Jersey
Statewide Drug Court Manual" (2019) (the Manual), and those revisions are
the crux of these appeals.
A-5654-18T4
3
We granted defendants Tevin M. Figaro, Anthony J. Green, and Abe
Harold, leave to appeal, calendared their appeals back-to-back, and now
consolidate them for the purpose of issuing a single opinion. All three
defendants face potential sentencing for violations of probation or for alleged
newly-committed offenses that are not "subject to a presumption of
incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility[.]"
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). Therefore, defendants are eligible for probationary
sentences at the discretion of the sentencing judge. Defendants applied to
Drug Court, hoping the sentencing court would consider their entry under
Track Two as a "reasonable condition[]" of any potential probationary
sentence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1(a). However, all three defendants had
been previously convicted of offenses that made them ineligible for admission
to Drug Court, if N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a) applied.
The State opposed each defendant's application, arguing that all of the
statutory disqualifications for special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)
were adopted by the Manual and applied to applicants on both tracks for
admission to Drug Court. Defendants filed motions seeking a declaration that
there was "no legal bar to [their] participation in . . . drug court," and
requesting that their applications "move forward." The Law Division judge
agreed with the State's arguments and entered orders denying defendants'
A-5654-18T4
4
motions. In each case, the judge stayed the order pending interlocutory appeal,
thereby permitting defendants' applications and evaluations to proceed.1
Defendants present identical arguments:
THIS MATTER SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF [DEFENDANT'S] DRUG
COURT APPLICATION BECAUSE THE JUDGE
DID NOT APPLY CORRECT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
IN FINDING THAT THE 2019 MANUAL
INTENDED THE STATUTORY BARS OF N.J.S.A.
35-14 TO APPLY TO TRACK TWO.
A. Prior To The 2019 Manual, The Legal Authority
For Automatic Bars To Track Two Came From The
2002 Manual. The Plain Language Of The 2019
Manual Removed The Automatic Bars To Track
Two[.]
B. The Legislature Adopted The Holding Of State v.
Meyer . . . By Amending N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 To
Clearly Indicate That the Statutory Bars Of [N.J.S.A.]
2C:35-14 Do Not Apply To Track Two. The 2019
Manual Is Consistent With This Legal Framework.
Having considered the arguments in light of the record and applicable legal
principles, we reverse and remand the matters to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
We briefly set forth the circumstances surrounding each defendant's
appeal.
1
We do not know what resulted.
A-5654-18T4
5
Tevin M. Figaro
In February 2018, after having pled guilty to third-degree possession of
heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), defendant was sentenced to two years of non-
custodial probation conditioned on his "report[ing] to substance abuse
evaluations and follow[ing] any and all recommendations." In November
2018, the probation department filed violation of probation (VOP) charges
against defendant and added additional charges in March 2019. He was
arrested on a VOP warrant in May 2019.
Defendant applied to Drug Court. The prosecutor reviewed his
application and determined that he "was previously adjudicated delinquent for
aggravated assault[] and is therefore statutorily barred from entry into the Drug
Court program." 2 Defendant sought the court's review. After considering the
parties' briefs and oral argument, the judge entered an order denying
defendant's motion to continue the processing of his application. Citing three
specific references to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 in the Manual, the judge reasoned,
"The only conclusion . . . I can come to is that the new manual . . . attempted
to create . . . uniformity in calling it the 'drug court' [statute] and basing the
criteria [for admission] . . . on [N.J.S.A.] 2C:35-14."
2
The prosecutor's recommendation was on a form entitled "Notice of Legal
Eligibility." It did not contain the statutory cite of defendant's aggravated
assault adjudication.
A-5654-18T4
6
Anthony J. Green
In April 2018, following a guilty plea to third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A.
2C:18-2(a)(1), defendant was sentenced to three years of non-custodial
probation conditioned on serving 364 days in the Cumberland County Jail,
undergoing a substance abuse evaluation, and complying with all treatment
recommendations. The probation department filed VOP charges against
defendant in October 2018, and amended them to include additional charges in
December.
The State recommended rejection of defendant's subsequent application
to Drug Court, stating defendant's previous convictions "on two or more
separate occasions," for a second-degree and a third-degree offense, including
two prior convictions for aggravated assault, barred him from entry into Drug
Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(6) and (7). 3 The prosecutor added:
"Pursuant to the newly released Drug Court Manual, the statutory eligibility
criteria of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 now appl[y] to all Drug Court applicants."
Defendant sought the court's review.
3
According to the prosecutor's letter to the judge recommending rejection,
defendant was convicted of second-degree robbery and third-degree
aggravated assault under a 1998 indictment, and third-degree aggravated
assault under a 1995 indictment. No statutory cites were included.
A-5654-18T4
7
After briefing and argument, the judge entered an order denying
defendant's motion to permit processing of his Drug Court application. As he
did in Figaro's case, the judge reasoned that pursuant to the Manual, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14's statutory bars applied to both tracks for admission to Drug Court.
Abe Harold
In December 2016, after having pled guilty to fourth-degree criminal
trespass, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(a), defendant was sentenced to two years of non-
custodial probation conditioned on serving 364 days in the Cumberland
County Jail. Defendant was subsequently arrested, a VOP was filed, and he
pled guilty to third-degree burglary and the VOP. N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1).
The judge imposed another probationary sentence, concurrent to the one
defendant was already serving. 4
In September 2018, the probation department again filed VOP charges
based upon, among other things, defendant's arrest for drug offenses. In
March 2019, a grand jury indicted him for third-degree possession of cocaine,
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1). Another indictment was returned in April, charging
defendant with third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1), and fourth-
degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a).
4
While these second charges were pending, defendant applied for admission
to Drug Court but was found clinically ineligible.
A-5654-18T4
8
Defendant applied to Drug Court. The State recommended rejection,
stating defendant's previous convictions "on two or more separate occasions"
for a second-degree and third-degree offense, "statutorily barr[ed] him from
[the] Drug Court" program "pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(6)."5 As it did
with the other two defendants, the State argued: "Pursuant to the newly
released Drug Court Manual, the statutory eligibility criteria of N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14 now appl[y] to all Drug Court applicants."
After considering the parties' briefs and oral arguments, the judge denied
defendant's motion. Employing similar reasoning as he did with defendants
Figaro and Green, and again citing three references to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 in the
Manual, he concluded the statutory bars applied to all Drug Court applications ,
whether made under Track One or Track Two.
II.
Our review is de novo, without deference to the Law Division judge's
reasoning, because appeals construing N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 and the manuals
present solely questions of law. State v. Maurer, 438 N.J. Super. 402, 411
(App. Div. 2014).
5
According to the prosecutor's letter to the judge, defendant was previously
convicted of second-degree robbery under a 1994 indictment, and third-degree
resisting arrest under a 2003 indictment. No statutory cites were included in
the prosecutor's letter.
A-5654-18T4
9
A.
"N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 was enacted in 1987 as part of the Comprehensive
Drug Reform Act of 1987 . . . 'to craft a new disposition alternative that
allowed a court to divert prison-bound defendants into an intensively
monitored and long-term program of rehabilitation[.]'" Hyland, 238 N.J. at
144 (quoting Meyer, 192 N.J. at 434). "Special probation has been an
available sentencing alternative [under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14] since 1999, when
the Legislature amended the statute." State v. Ancrum, 449 N.J. Super. 526,
532 (App. Div. 2017) (citing State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533, 540 (App.
Div. 2013), aff'd o.b., 223 N.J. 290 (2015)). The Court recently recounted in
detail the legislative history of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 since its enactment. Hyland,
238 N.J. at 144–45.
We need not repeat it here, except to note that the Legislature has moved
inexorably toward expanding "special probation" as a sentencing alternative.
See, e.g., id. at 145 (noting that the 2012 amendment, which "eliminat[ed] both
the prosecutorial veto and the State's right to appeal Drug Court sentences[,]"
evidenced a legislative intent to divert additional offenders into the Drug Court
program); see Ancrum, 449 N.J. Super. at 534 (noting the same amendment
expanded eligibility for special probation and Drug Court by removing the bar
to those previously convicted of certain second-degree crimes that are subject
A-5654-18T4
10
to the No Early Release Act); see also Maurer, 438 N.J. Super. at 413
("Evidence of the Legislature's intention to liberalize admission to Drug Court
is found in the legislative history for the 2012 amendments[]" to N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14.).
Special probation is only available to offenders who are "ineligible for
probation due to a conviction for a crime which is subject to a presumption of
incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility[.]"
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). Of particular relevance to these appeals, certain
otherwise eligible offenders are ineligible for special probation because of
prior convictions. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(7) (making ineligible for
Drug Court an offender "previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent
for . . . murder, aggravated manslaughter, manslaughter, kidnapping,
aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault"); (a)(6)
(making ineligible for Drug Court an offender convicted "on two or more
separate occasions of crimes of the first or second degree, other than those
listed in paragraph (7); or . . . has . . . been previously convicted on two or
more separate occasions, where one of the offenses is a crime of the third
degree, other than crimes defined in N.J.S.[A.] 2C:35-10, and one of the
offenses is a crime of the first or second degree").
A-5654-18T4
11
Here, all three defendants were ineligible for special probation in the
first instance, because none of the charges underlying the VOPs and none of
the new charges they faced were "subject to a presumption of incarceration or
a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility[.]" N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a).
In addition, Figaro was ineligible for special probation, having been
adjudicated delinquent of aggravated assault. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(7). Green
was ineligible under both subsection (a)(6), having been convicted on two
separate occasions for crimes of the second- and third-degree, and (a)(7),
having been convicted of aggravated assault. Harold was ineligible for special
probation under (a)(6) because of his prior convictions.
In Meyer, the Court rejected an argument nearly identical to that which
the State advances here, specifically, "that only those defendants eligible for
'special probation' under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 may be admitted into a drug court
program." 192 N.J. at 423, 436–37. In 2008, in direct response to the decision
in Meyer, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a) to clarify that nothing
in the statute prohibits a person "eligible for probation in accordance with
N.J.S.[A.] 2C:45-1 . . . from applying for drug or alcohol treatment as a
condition of probation[.]" Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. at 540–41. The statutory
amendment made clear that Drug Court was a sentencing option available to a
judge via two tracks. In other words, while "[s]pecial probation 'and Drug
A-5654-18T4
12
Courts serve complementary purposes[,]'" Ancrum, 449 N.J. Super. at 532
(quoting Meyer, 192 N.J. at 424), "Drug Court is available under two tracks
(special probation and regular probation), [and] the two are separate and
distinct[,]" Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. at 540. Eligibility for entry into Drug
Court via Track Two has always be governed by the Drug Court Manuals. See
Clarke, 203 N.J. at 175–76; Meyer, 192 N.J. at 431–34; Maurer, 438 N.J.
Super. at 412–15.
Given this precedent, why is there any confusion about the eligibility of
defendants in these appeals to at least apply to Drug Court under Track Two?
The answer lies in revisions made to that section of the Manual explaining
legal eligibility for Drug Court.
B.
The 2002 Manual expressly described two eligibility tracks for Drug
Court: 1) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 35-14; and, 2) "under the general sentencing
provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice." Meyer, 192 N.J. at 432 (citing
2002 Manual, at 16). The 2002 Manual explicitly contained separate
guidelines for admission under both tracks. 2002 Manual at 9–18. As to
Track One, the 2002 Manual included the statutory bars to admission then
contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. Id. at 11–13. As to Track Two, an applicant
was eligible for Drug Court if:
A-5654-18T4
13
a. the person ha[d] a drug or alcohol dependence, as
determined by a diagnostic assessment and substance
abuse treatment and monitoring [was] likely to benefit
the person; and
b. the person ha[d] not been previously convicted or
adjudicated delinquent for, and does not have a
pending charge of murder, aggravated manslaughter,
manslaughter, robbery, kidnap[p]ing, aggravated
assault, aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault, or
a similar crime under the laws of any other state or the
United States; and
c. the person did not possess a firearm at the time of
the present offense and ha[d] no history of possession
of a firearm during an offense; and
d. no danger to the community [was] likely to result
from the person being placed on probation.
[Id. at 16 (emphasis added).]
Thus, while establishing a separate track for admission to Drug Court, the
2002 Manual specifically attempted to incorporate statutory bars contained at
the time in N.J.S.A. 35-14(a)(5), subsection (c) above, and (7), subsection (b)
above. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5) and (7) (2002). Additionally, under the 2002
Manual's guidelines, an offender charged with a first- or second-degree crime
was ineligible for Drug Court under either track. Id. at 17. However, the 2002
Manual did not include the statutory bar then contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35 -
14(a)(6), which barred from special probation any person "previously
convicted on two or more separate occasions of crimes of the first, second[,] or
A-5654-18T4
14
third degree, other than crimes defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10." N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14(a)(6) (2002).
As we noted in Maurer, the 2002 Manual imposed more stringent
eligibility requirements for applicants under Track Two than existed for
applicants under Track One special probation. 438 N.J. Super. at 405. In
Maurer, the defendant, otherwise eligible for Track Two consideration, was
denied admission to Drug Court because of a prior conviction for possession of
a handgun. Id. at 408. We observed that the 2002 Manual's
condition [wa]s more restrictive than the similar
requirement for Track One offenders who commit a
more serious offense. Under [N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
14(a)(5)], a Track One offender is eligible for Drug
Court if "the person did not possess a firearm at the
time of the present offense and did not possess a
firearm at the time of any pending criminal charge."
A more serious offender may, therefore, have a prior
conviction for a weapons charge and still be eligible
for Drug Court.
[Id. at 415 (quoting 2002 Manual at 11) (in turn
quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5) (2002)).]
We recognized the "unfairness" in strictly applying the 2002 Manual's
guidelines, "especially in light of the legislature's obvious intention" in the
2012 amendments to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 "to liberalize admission to Drug Court
A-5654-18T4
15
based on the success of the program." Id. at 417.6 We modified the guidelines
and ordered a remand to the Law Division for consideration of the defendant's
application, "despite his [conviction for an] earlier weapons offense." Id. at
418.
The new Manual includes significant amendments which we
acknowledge create some ambiguities. It first reiterates that any "defendant is
legally eligible for drug court if he or she qualifies for sentencing to special
probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 (Track One) or regular probation under
N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1 (Track Two)." Manual, at 9 (emphasis added). The State
concedes that the Manual preserved admissions into Drug Court via two tracks.
However, the State argued, and the judge accepted, that three specific
references to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 in the legal eligibility section of the Manual
make it clear that the AOC purposely created uniformity in Drug Court
eligibility under both tracks. These references are:
• First, among other things, "[t]he legal screening for drug court
acceptance could involve a review of the following: [s]tatutory
eligibility criteria contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 or other statutory
provisions in the code, if applicable." Ibid. (emphases added).
6
We also noted another anomaly. While the 2012 amendments to N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14 "removed the express ban on admission of those defendants who
committed either second-degree robbery or burglary offenses[,]" the 2002
Manual continued to bar Track Two admission to an applicant previously
convicted of second-degree robbery. Id. at 414.
A-5654-18T4
16
• Second, the prosecutor "should review the candidate for
presumptive legal eligibility and then forward a letter indicating a
recommendation as to legal eligibility[.]" Ibid.
"A drug court prosecutor can recommend a legal rejection based
on N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 and whether the applicant is a potential danger to
the community." Ibid. (emphasis added).
• Third, "[a]n applicant's acceptance into drug court should be based
on the defendant's clinical and legal eligibility, in accordance with the
drug court statute." Id. at 9–10. The State argued, and the judge found,
the "drug court statute" was N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14.
In short, citing these three portions of the Manual, the judge accepted the
State's contention that all the legal eligibility bars contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
14 apply with equal force to Track Two applicants, like defendants.
As part of broader arguments asserted on appeal, the State reiterates that
the intent behind the Manual was to foster uniformity and subject all Drug
Court applicants to the same legal eligibility criteria, namely N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
14, something the State says is consistent with the "historical move towards
Drug Court uniformity." It also asserts that the Court's holding in Meyer, and
our decision in Maurer, were "not incorporated into N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14," and
were rendered "moot" by adoption of the Manual. While acknowledging that
the Manual should be clearer in addressing the preservation of two tracks and
different legal eligibility for each, we reject the State's contentions for a
variety of reasons.
A-5654-18T4
17
Initially, the text of the Manual, read in its entirety, does not support the
State's claims. For example, the Manual clearly states that "[a]ll violations of
probation (VOP) should be screened" for possible admission, and a supervising
probation officer may recommend that "the sentencing judge . . . consider drug
court as an alternative to incarceration[.]" Id. at 7. The Manual does not
prohibit screening VOPs for possible admission where the underlying charge
was aggravated assault, even though a prior conviction for aggravated assault
is a statutory bar to admission under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(7). The Manual
further provides that "[a]t the time of re-sentencing to drug court [on a VOP],
there must be a minimum of two years of a probationary term remaining to
provide the probationer sufficient time to successfully complete the program."
Ibid. In other words, the Manual permits a sentence to Drug Court for a VOP,
even though the potential sentence is less than the mandatory five-year
probationary sentence required by N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a), and without the
mandatory consequences for violations of special probation contained in
subsection (f) of the statute.
The language in the legal eligibility section of the Manual dealing with
"legal screening" is permissive, stating the process "could involve a review" of
numerous of factors, including "[s]tatutory eligibility criteria contained in
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 or other statutory provisions in the code, if applicable." Id.
A-5654-18T4
18
at 9 (emphasis added). If this meant that only one set of eligibility criteria,
i.e., N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, applied to both tracks, as the State contends, there was
no need to include the language we have emphasized. The State has not
suggested an explanation for the additional language consistent with its
argument. Moreover, the Manual could have simply said that the criteria
contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 apply to eligibility under both tracks, if that is
what the AOC intended.
The Manual makes clear that the prosecutor may object to any
application to Drug Court. See ibid. ("If the prosecutor recommends denial of
the application, the reasons for denial must be documented in writing within
[ten] days of the application[.]"). Thereafter, the Manual again permits, but
does not necessarily require, application of the statutory bars in N.J.S.A.
2C:35-14 by stating: "A drug court prosecutor can recommend a legal
rejection based on N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 and whether the applicant is a potential
danger to the community." Ibid. (emphasis added). In other words, the
Manual permits the prosecutor to recommend against admission of a Track
Two applicant based on the statutory bars. It goes without saying that if the
statutory bars automatically applied, no "recommendation" would be necessary
because, according to the State, a judge would be legally prohibited from
admitting these Track Two applicant-defendants into Drug Court.
A-5654-18T4
19
We are uncertain what the drafters of the Manual meant by stating: "An
applicant's acceptance into drug court should be based on the defendant's
clinical and legal eligibility, in accordance with the drug court statute." Id. at
10. We acknowledge that the Manual's use of "the drug court statute" is a
clear reference to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, see id. at 10, 24. As already noted, the
statute makes no reference to drug courts. Meyer, 192 N.J. at 428. And, we
have already pointed out other portions of the Manual's text that are
inconsistent with strict application of the statutory bars to Track Two
eligibility.
Additionally, as defendant argues, there are extra-textual reasons for
rejecting the State's interpretation of the Manual's legal eligibility
requirements for Track Two admission. We noted that the legal eligibility
requirements for Track Two contained in the 2002 Manual included two
sections that mirrored statutory bars contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 at the
time, thus expressly prohibiting Track Two admission to Drug Court based on
certain prior convictions. The AOC removed references to prior convictions of
any kind being per se bars to eligibility in the new Manual. Instead, the
Manual permits the prosecutor and the court to consider all the "statutory
eligibility criteria" contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 when reviewing a Track
Two application and allows the prosecutor to recommend denial based on
A-5654-18T4
20
those factors. However, "[t]he drug court judge makes all final decisions
about program eligibility." Manual, at 9 (emphasis added). Furthermore, there
is no indication in the text of the Manual that the AOC impliedly rejected the
holdings in Meyer or Maurer, or that they no longer have vitality.
Lastly, contrary to what the State concedes has been a clear intention to
expand Drug Court eligibility over the years due to its successes, we observe
that the State's interpretation of the Manual would make eligibility under Track
Two more restrictive than it was under the 2002 Manual. As noted above,
Track Two applicants were ineligible under the 2002 Manual if they had been
previously convicted of the most serious crimes, or possessed a firearm at the
time of the present offense or had a history of possessing a firearm during an
offense. 2002 Manual, at 16. However, Track Two applicants who had
multiple prior convictions that were not convictions for the enumerated crimes
were not barred. As evidenced by Harold's appeal, under the State's
interpretation of the Manual, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(6) would present an
absolute bar to Track Two admission to Drug Court, because prior multiple
convictions for other than the most serious crimes listed in subsection (a)(7)
present an insurmountable hurdle. That was not the case under the 2002
Manual.
A-5654-18T4
21
We conclude that the State's interpretation of the Manual's eligibility
criteria for Track Two applicants to Drug Court is contrary to the text of the
document and the intended expansion of the program. We hasten to add that a
judge considering whether a Track Two applicant is a candidate for Drug
Court must, of course, decide whether a probationary sentence is appropriate
in the first instance. See Clarke, 203 N.J. at 176 ("Under the second track, the
applicant must convince the judge that a probationary sentence under the
general sentencing provisions of the Code of Criminal Justice is appropriate."
(citing Meyer, 192 N.J. at 433)). As the Manual expressly states, the criteria
in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 are relevant to the prosecutor's recommendation and the
court's consideration.
We reverse the orders under review and remand the matters to the trial
court for processing of defendants' Drug Court applications. We express no
opinion whatsoever about their potential admission to the program or the
ultimate sentence to be imposed by the court upon any adjudication of guilt.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-5654-18T4
22