JOSEPH HERRERA v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Annotate this Case

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1482-05T41482-05T4

JOSEPH HERRERA,

Appellant,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________________

 

Submitted: April 24, 2006 - Decided May 8, 2006

Before Judges Cuff and Gilroy.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Barbara A. Hedeen, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lisa A. Puglisi, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Inmate Joseph Herrera appeals from the November 4, 2005 decision by respondent Department of Corrections (DOC) regarding calculation of his commutation credits. Herrera is currently incarcerated at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center in Avenel. He is serving an aggregate term of fifteen years for three counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

Herrera seeks commutation credit for the 619 days spent in the county jail before sentencing. He argues that the failure of the DOC to grant commutation credit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-140 for the time spent in the county jail violates his rights to due process and to equal protection under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions. These arguments were recently addressed and squarely rejected by this court in Buncie v. Department of Corrections, 382 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2005). We perceive no basis to depart from our decision in Buncie; therefore, the decision of the DOC to deny commutation credit for time served in the county jail prior to sentencing is affirmed.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-1482-05T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 8, 2006

 


Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.